I would like to know when there is an actual terrorist threat. Not the vague "I heard it on the grapevine." Short of that a constant reminder to be vigilant will do. Based upon intelligence an attack is possible at any time. The danger is no greater from one time than another. .
So unless we have a who, what, where, when, and how, the government should not put out notices of terrorist threats? That should be the policy?
I propose a jamming of all radio signals to play songs that relate to the nature of the threat:
Green - It's Not Easy Being Green, Kermit the Frog
Blue - Blue Moon, any version, just to let folks know we're watching the skies
Yellow - Mellow Yellow, Donovan, to both scare and pacify the public at the same time
Orange - All Along the Watchtower, the Hendrix version
Red - Eve of Destruction
EVE OF DESTRUCTION
Barry McGuire
The eastern world it is explodin',
violence flarin', bullets loadin',
you're old enough to kill but not for votin',
you don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin',
and even the Jordan river has bodies floatin',
but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say?
Can't you feel the fears I'm feeling today?
If the button is pushed, there's no running away,
There'll be no one to save with the world in a grave,
take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy,
and ya tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
Yeah, my blood's so mad, feels like coagulatin',
I'm sittin' here, just contemplatin',
I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation,
handful of Senators don't pass legislation,
and marches alone can't bring integration,
when human respect is disintigratin',
this whole crazy world is just too frustratin',
and ya tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
Think of all the hate there is in Red China!
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama!
Ah, you may leave here, for four days in space,
but when your return, it's the same old place,
the poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace,
you can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace,
hate your next-door-neighbour, but don't forget to say grace,
and tell me over and over and over and over again my friend,
you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
No no, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
But what should the policy be Cav?
Fox
Quote:So unless we have a who, what, where, when, and how, the government should not put out notices of terrorist threats? That should be the policy?
Is that what you think I wrote . Read it again!
To help you out. "Constant reminders"
So what criteria would suffice Au? What should the policy be? If the administration is doing it all wrong, how should it be doing it?
What's wrong with my proposal?
Sure, it wouldn't make the policy any more clear, but at least people could listen to some terror alert related tunes, and make up their own minds.
LOL Cav. But that wouldn't satisfy the group on this thread. I've asked several times now what the policy should be and nobody has any specifics it seems. So we have the current administration is wrong in whatever it does re terrorist threats but nobody has a clue what it should be doing differently. Does anybody else get soooooo sick of that?
Fox
The criteria is that there is an ongoing terror threat. And they should be vigilant. Not today is orange, tomorrow is blue, the next day is lemonade or some other cockamamie color. Everyday has the same level of threat. That is a truism. Anything else is the government trying to pull our chain.
So Au, your recommendation for a policy regarding informing the public of terrorist threats is eliminate the color scheme but otherwise continue issuing alerts as they have been doing?
Foxfyre, I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities as a non-American who ignores the colour threats. I think it was a sound idea at the time that went horribly wrong. We will assume that this policy was implemented out of a desire to let the public know what was going on with terrorist threats. Well, the public didn't buy it, and some feel that it is simply a tool of Bush and his administration to pummel them into a culture of fear, which would presumably lead to more votes for Bush, the war president. Anyone who buys into a culture of fear is primed for manipulation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the military, don't they call this Psy-Ops? Thankfully, people are getting smarter, despite a lot of misinformation being tossed about on the internet. If half-truths lead to questioning, somewhere down the road, the real story will come out. IMO, what they should have done was nothing at all. No colour alerts, no announcements until something truly threatening came up. They had a political plan, and it backfired. That's how I see it.
Cav you're just repeating your view that the Bush administration is wrong. It's obvious you and everybody else on this thread thinks the administration is a) pandering/fear mongering and/or b) screwing it up and/or c) doing it all wrong.
I ask again. What should the policy be?
We would not even need so called alerts. They could work it out with the networks to have them remind the people of the threat of terrorism on an ongoing basis. This color scheme is pure BS.
In the simplest terms possible, the policy should be: "Let's actually be honest with the public."
Incidentally, I have enough to do, so writing US policy, which I am not even qualified for professionally or legally, is really out of my range of skill and experience. Sadly, it also seems out of range for those hired to do the job.
Although terrorist have made symbolic attacks, USS Cole, US embassy in Kenya, the majority of the attacks have been designed to create as much havoc as possible, for example Bali and Madrid. The current "security" measures are resources put to the wrong use, protecting buildings With the wrong result, creating a general sense of fear. It is more likely that the terrorists would drive an explosive laden cab into a crowd and set it off killing as many people as possible.
Living in NY I can think of a many ways that a terrorist can attack. Ways that are for all practical purposes cannot be defended against. What is the color scheme for that? As for terrorists entering the country. Our borders are as porous as a sieve.
Okay. What we have illustrated here is that just about everybody (on this thread) is of the opinion that the Bush adminsitration is inadequate to the task of alerting the public to the threat of terrorism and what they are doing is wrong. That is being said in many different ways yet not one of you has a clue as to what the policy should be other than dump the color rating system. (Dumping the color scheme is being discussed by the administration and is under consideration by the way.)
I'll leave you all to your Bush bashing now as the thread has become too circular to be useful for constructive debate.
In parting I will say that I am capable of understanding that the administration and intelligence agencies receive hundreds, maybe thousands of pieces of information daily related to terrorist threats, and the process of determining what is valid, what is diversion, what is intentional pot stirring, and what is bogus is a heroculean task almost certainly beyond the ability of mortal men to do absolutely accurately.
I personally want to know when the experts deem the terrorist threat to be elevated or when the threat seems unusually compelling or serious. I am capable of understanding that these things are fluid and uncertain and do not need to feel hysterical or afraid simply because I am informed. I have advised my elected representatives that I wish to continue to be informed.
Yea, but foxfrye, the threat level never goes down below a high alert status and a result most ordinary people totally ignore the alert graph. We are always going to be on high alert because terrorist want to harm us. Everyone knows that. So why don't they just come on TV when they have something specific to tell us. It is now like the story of the little boy crying wolf even though there is a real threat out there.
Foxfyre wrote:Okay. What we have illustrated here is that just about everybody (on this thread) is of the opinion that the Bush adminsitration is inadequate to the task of alerting the public to the threat of terrorism and what they are doing is wrong. That is being said in many different ways yet not one of you has a clue as to what the policy should be other than dump the color rating system. (Dumping the color scheme is being discussed by the administration and is under consideration by the way.)
I'll leave you all to your Bush bashing now as the thread has become too circular to be useful for constructive debate.
In parting I will say that I am capable of understanding that the administration and intelligence agencies receive hundreds, maybe thousands of pieces of information daily related to terrorist threats, and the process of determining what is valid, what is diversion, what is intentional pot stirring, and what is bogus is a heroculean task almost certainly beyond the ability of mortal men to do absolutely accurately.
I personally want to know when the experts deem the terrorist threat to be elevated or when the threat seems unusually compelling or serious. I am capable of understanding that these things are fluid and uncertain and do not need to feel hysterical or afraid simply because I am informed. I have advised my elected representatives that I wish to continue to be informed.
It IS a Herculean task indeed, which is why they should have kept it in the background, as they always have done.
