February 8th, 2003, 02:54 PM
US gov says 'high' risk of terrorist attack...
Source and full story here
Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level Friday to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack...
February 8th, 2003, 05:58 PM
Well I guess it's inevitable that the likelihood of attack increases the closer the US gets to the end of the inspection cycle.
However I'm not cancelling my travel plans. Does anyone these days? We seem to have moved into a stage of healthy (?) fatalism wherein we just carry on with the extra weight of knowledge and experience.
In the UK we never step down to low threat because of the IRA, even though there haven't been any serious problems in England with this for ages. Problem is, this seems to equate to posting coloured boards in the lobbies of public buildings and assuming workers remember what they mean.
668 - the neighbor of the beast
February 8th, 2003, 06:35 PM
Gov't posts high risk of terrorist attack
I personally like to be notified if the risk rises. In the world we all live in it behooves us to open our ears and eyes.Forewarned is forearmed. Of course you are damned if you do and damned if you don't notify people.Many claim that this is useless and only causes tension and worry for them, however these would be the first ones to complain and demand an answer if these notifications were dropped. I think after what happened on 9/11 we should all be a bit more attentive to what is going on in this country. Auntie
For hundreds of years the brain was physically capable of the thoughts of a Galelio or an Aristotle among people who had not yet learned to count to ten. Much of that equipment is still unused and waiting.
February 8th, 2003, 08:21 PM
Auntie makes an excellent point, but isn't the whole point of terrorism to make people change their behaviour because they fear the consequences? For the sake of the economy if nothing else, we need to be careful that we take appropriate action and then carry on with our lives (which I think Auntie is doing so please don't take this as a slur).
Two years ago I was hosting a party for various high ranking security people in London. We were waiting on the banks of the Thames to get onboard a dinner cruiser. The boat was late and I was asked (by phone), to lead everyone away from the bridge, further along the bank to a different venue. I assumed (and was not told otherwise) that this was just because the boat was unable to dock where it was, and led this group along, (this is more funny if you imagine me in a ballgown trying to shepherd 25 tipsy ubergeeks along a dark walkway). We got there 20 minutes later and caught the boat. I thought nothing of it till I spoke to my boss afterwards. The reason we'd moved venue was that they'd found a bomb under the bridge and carried out a controlled explosion. My leading them away was the only way to get them away from the danger without causing panic.
My instant reaction was anger, leaving us in a dangerous situation without actually giving us the information to make a decision as to how to react. Then I realised that because it was dark, they were all unfamiliar with the environment (and slightly tiddled), this was the only way that we could have been moved quickly and without causing further worries.
I guess my point is this: information changes the nature of threats in both good and bad ways. If your reaction is to report bags left at airports, that's good. If it means you become reliant on being told what to do (and abandoned your natural instinct for common sense), well that's not so good.
In the UK, often information is suppressed so that people don't worry, and mostly it works, people don't worry. The general public appears to be happily ignorant most of the time.
Perhaps because of our interest in security we are more prone to concern?
668 - the neighbor of the beast