We both agree that there is no proof the system either works or doesn't work, right? Thus it's credibility must be neutral. It has not been shown to work or to not work.

The absence of an event does not offer proof that this system prevented the event. I think we agree on this, right?

Because you cannot show the system prevented an event it's credibility as a deterrent cannot go up. No matter how long we wait.

(Caveat -- Unless you determine a base rate for terrorist strikes in our country, and then within a specific confidence interval, you could argue that the system serves as a deterrent after a certain time frame. But I haven't seen any statistical computations to this effect.)

If an event happened, the alert system's credibility as a deterrent will go down. However, if during a Red Alert, an attack occured, it's predictive validity would increase.

Whistler

 

Well - when the "alert level" changes there is a lot going on around that one might not notice.

For example we generally are in a yellow condition. When the Department of Homeland Security raises the level to Orange it costs the country about a billion dollars a day. Your local police departments will start increased patrols on sites that are considered high risk i.e. - water systems, hospitals, airports and other locations - enve if privately owned - they may contain chemicals and excellerants.

The Federal government is paying for bio-hazzard suits for all police and fire personnel - sworn only.

Because of these changes the average person's life will remain un affected by the different alert levels.

That is just one way terrorism is defeated when our lives can remain on track!

 

DougD, You are correct. Welcome to FTE.

 

If you have measures in place to prevent your toilet from leaking and there is no water on the floor are your measures working?
First, is the water on? Yes water flows back in after flushing. (terrorists still making threats and releasing tapes)

We know the water is on and the toilet works as it is suppose to. There is no water on the floor or dripping from the connections (dead americans from terrorists attacks) so the measure that we put in place must be working. We can't peer in there and see the seals doing there job but by logical reasoning we can assume that the seals are doing there intended job. When we begin to see water on the floor we know the seals have failed.
The water is on. Terrorist want in to kill us. The seals (Alert system) that have been in place for the last two years seem to be holding. Therefore in my mind gaining credibility as they hold back the water.

 

haulingboat--

Interesting analogy. On some level it makes sense, but I think this one fits better:

My toilet doesn't leak (no terrorist attacks). One day I come home and find water on the floor by the toilet (a terror attack). I logically deduce it came from the toilet. It is no longer leaking, but I really don't know how the toilet water got there (we didn't watch the terrorists plan their attack). So I add a bunch of silicone caulk and rubber seals (alert system). Just to be on the safe side, I got a brightly colored seat cover (I am partial to orange).

My toilet still doesn't leak a year later. How do I know the seals and silicone worked? I don't. I may want to believe they did, but I have no evidence to suggest they were the measures responsible for stopping the leak. Perhaps it was the wax ring that self-healed when I sat on it the next time. Perhaps someone clogged the toilet, fixed it in my absence, and forgot to mop up. Perhaps the toilet didn't even leak at all, maybe it was sweating a whole lot and dripped onto the floor.


Whistler

 

I lived through the cold war, including the bomb shelter craze, and watched apathy take the place of intended government control. Much the same as WWII Germans continued their way of life by adjusting during saturation bombing. You're comparing the possibility of nuclear attack by a sovereign nation to a terrorist. That's as apples to oranges as it gets.

I've listed these on the forum before:

I no longer contribute to local political campaigns due to the fact that if a politician goes bad, as they do, I'm automatically involved if my checks went through one of his/her bank accounts with the Patriot Act money laundering clause allowing no search warrant examination of anyone's personal records.

I no longer fly commercial because I'm not allowed to take a personal weapon with me, even in baggage. I used to give it to the cockpit crew and they'd hand it to me after we landed. And after the first time of taking my shoes off, I decided the 'security guard' didn't have enough expertise to make the hassle and extended time worthwhile.

I no longer discuss investment opportunities on the telephone or in emails because the FBI now shares information with all other federal enforcement agencies. Not that me or anyone else is doing anything illegal, but most development pools were informally polled before subscription began to see if enough interest existed to continue the effort. That's theoretically illegal if a public notice hasn't been executed. The Gestapo is arresting people for 'suspicion', so why take a chance?

There are others, but generally not applicable to the general public.

I find the government warnings annoying. I watched the Patriot Act invoked over New Year's Eve in Las Vegas. Each hotel had to furnish the FBI with guest lists, armed Air Force choppers closed off all the air space and National Guard Troops (those still in the US) supplemented our local police force. How's that for a police state? Anyone who lives here, including a police official I know, can tell you at least a dozen ways any dedicated terrorist could have blown up the entire strip in spite of all the precautions, alerts and mass expenditure of resources.

Most people like warm, fuzzy news regardless of reality and their government making more and more of their decisions for them. I'll pass on that.

 

I guess this whole thing boils down to one belief - that your government can protect you from terrorism.

I for one don't think they can. That's the very nature of terrorism. Ask the Israelis how it's going so far.

We can spend a billion dollars a day and place a few cops at a bridge or a water treatment plant, but IMHO, it's a pointless exercise, like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. The only real purpose it serves is to give the public the warm fuzzies and present the image that the government has things under control and is being pro-active.

I simply don't believe you can prevent a dedicated terrorists from destroying or disrupting these services. IMHO the only reason the USA hasn't seen another major attack is because the terrorists are not ready to execute one and haven't tried. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think that believing your gov't is protecting you by going to code orange and making you take your shoes off at the airport is a HUGE leap of faith.

The toilet may not be leaking, but your shower and the sink may blow up tomorrow.

Waxy

 

George, I to am for small government. I could not agree more with that. However if there is one thing that a government should do, it is protect their citizens. They should provide a military and do what is nessicary to protect us from foriegn invasion. Be it German ****'s, Russian Nukes, or terrorists with planes. If you are killed by one of them does it really matter what form your death came in? Its still a forgien invasion. The group happens to be a band of thugs instead of a band of countrymen. In my book an attack is an attack.

 

This sounds like a cop out to me. We may not stop every single individual from doing damage, but that does not mean we can't stem the flow. We cannot lay down and let them take as many swings as they wish. If we do that, then perhaps every wacked out anti society posse that gets together will take a swing. " Oh look what we did to the ecomony. Look at the Americans on their knees now."

It sounds more like a glass half full/ half empty situation to me. I prefer to see it half full.

 

What was wrong with the way things were pre 9/11?

Were we not stemming the flow back then?

The biggest threat came from guys like Timothy McVeigh, and he's the only one I can think of. I don't buy into this rabid escalation of terrorist violence by every group under the sun. That's a cop out to rationalize the trade off we're making.

It didn't happen before 9/11, why do you think it will happen now? The two ideas don't jive. The Islamic fundamentalists aren't any more bent on destroying us now than they were in the 80's (well maybe a little), and it would seem to me that radical groups within the US are no more of a threat than they were before, in fact likely less.

Does anyone honestly believe we can prevent the next 9/11 type attack?

If we can't, then what are we fighting against?

Waxy

 

Our government has failed miserably by using conventional tactics against an attacker still at large. There's no big flow of terrorists, they're not around every corner. It happens to be a cell structured group of extreme idealists, which means when you eliminate one cell (person), all you've done is chop off the leg of a centipede with the remainder of the legs scattered about the world. It'll just grow a new leg.

The 'chatter' you refer to is another government warm fuzzy used to placate the citizenry and let them know their giant bureaucratic inefficiency is spending money to protect them. A little reading will provide the news that Bin Laden and most people who prefer to keep their conversations private use satellite telephones with scrambled encryption even the NSA can't break. That chatter could be about the weather, who had a baby or the latest target. So we have a color-coded alert every time we hear 'chatter'? And that should make people feel safer?

I think the feeling of safety because a government, any government, says you're safe is much like worshiping a belief system in that all you've got is faith, no proof. Would it make people feel better if Chicago was wiped off the map but because the orange alert was on the rest of the US is untouched? Would they attribute their survival to the alert? At this rate we'll eventually be worshiping the God of Alerts.

 

Waxy,

I do.

Am I correct in thinking, you believe that 9/11 was a one time shot? That the Jihad they have proclaimed was all sumed up on 9/11? That the promises to continue the attacks and the repeated call to arms via tape recordings are just a bunch a fooy?

The world, at least for America is a very different place than it was before 9/11. I don't believe any of the things above. I don't believe we could survive as we were before 9/11.

 

George, they are not telling us we are safe. They are saying just the opposite. These government conspicericies seem to touch your life far more often than they touch mine.

The chatter conspiricy certainly requires alot of people to play along. Again I don't think the they tell us about chatter to give us the warm and fuzzies. Rather, to remind us to be aware of the hightened police presence and possibility of attack. What we have now is a far cry from a police state. If Russia had flung over a bomb or Germany had put troops on our shores then you would have had a police state.

 

Until the root of the problem is eliminated, the problem won't go away. And that's not just Bin Laden. Our foreign policy invites terrorism. When you provide unlimted support for Israel, invade and occupy an Islamic nation with the intent of instilling democracy at the point of a gun and use fear of our military to 'negotiate' with the rest of the Mid-East, not all will be happy campers.

 

What do you call seizure without due cause, arrest with no legal representation and restricted travel? We even had the military road blocks here on New Year's Eve. Interstate 15 was closed down from 5pm to 4am. Anymore of a police state appearance and ID medallions will be issued to FBI agents.

Let's leave at you believe our government is doing the right thing and I believe we're avoiding making the hard calls.