US Jeprodizes War on Terror to Justify Alert Status

[Durandal]

Give me a break. It doesn't save shit.

You don't know that. The raise in awarness triggered by an alert could be the difference between someone ignoring an abandoned suitcase in a train station, and noticing it.

Security guards should always be aware of such things. That kind of shit can happen at any time, anywhere, if someone gets pissed off enough.

You're partly right; the alerts do generate fear. But that's a good thing, if intelligence says an attack could happen. Because when people are afriad, they are more awake, and pay closer attention to their surrondings.

Except that Ridge has cried wolf so many times that everyone realizes, by now, that he's a sack of shit stuck to Bush's nipple.

Do you know the story behind the latest alert? As soon as the guy was captured, "terrorist chatter" [or whatever the term they use] went down. In fact it fucked up a Pakistani sting operation. Like I said before, the department wouldn't release alerts for political reasone like you're suggesting because the Democrats sitting in the department wouldn't just sit back and let that kind of bullshit fly.

Of course I know the story behind it. That story only proves my point. What kind of dumb-asses would tell the world that they've captured the guy who was in charge of relaying al Qaeda's messages through the internet and through various communication channels? Of course terrorist chatter dropped! Any intelligence agent worth half his weight in salt could've told you that would happen! But they did it anyway and fucked up a Pakistani sting operation that could've brought more of the terrorists in. The only explanation I can see is that they needed something to get people scared enough to forget about the DNC. That or total, inexcusable incompetence, and Ridge's penchant of orally massaging the Bush campaign makes me lean toward the latter. Either way, these people shouldn't be running that operation.

Once again you're forgetting that there are Democrats in Homeland Security. Do you really think they'd let politcally motivated announcments fly by without saying anything?

And who runs it? TOM RIDGE! A BUSH APPOINTEE! He can say whatever he damn well pleases in his little press announcements, and he can call them whenever he damn well pleases. And do you really think a Democrat working with Homeland Security who came out saying that Ridge is a party-line asshole would be with that agency for much longer? There are plenty of ways to get people to shut up about the internal goings-on in an organization.

The alerts are based on real intelligence. Maybe that intelligence is wrong, but that isn't the issue.

No, the issue is that the intelligence is old and unreliable, but they still try to whip up some panic from it.

[BoredShirtless]

It's like a universal constant, whtever position I take BS must be on the opposite end.

Oh please don't be so melodramatic.

So I guess you've gone and bought the whole party line hook line and sinker that these alerts are a good thing, that we're actually safer because of the alerts.

Common sense. An alert backed by good intelligence [like the latest one] will make people more aware. And it could take just one aware person to notice an abandoned suitcase, suspicous behaviour, whatever which could save lives.

Alerts that are generated with 4 year old intelligence, surveillance photos that were updated in January and happen to come out right after the DNC and last until Election day, a constant reminder of the threat your under and so please vote Bush?

Coincidence. Until you convince me that the Democrats sitting in Homeland Security would sit on their hands and therefore support Bush, it's just coincidence. Like the prison scandal drowinging out May's great job figures. Like some other scandal drowning out Junes.

The only way he can justify this alert is to blow some poor bastard's cover in Pakistan thus ruining a sting operation that could indeed have made us safer by eliminating more Al-Qaeda terrorists. They made the decision that political expediency in explaining this terror alert was more important that capturing terrorists and you say that the alert system works?

Again you lay the blame for the fucked up sting operation on a politically motivated press release. Could it have been just a simple fuck up? As in, the US didn't know the Pakistanis where in the middle of a sting?

No, the Keystone Kops that are our Homeland Security team inspire little to no confidence in me and so are mock worthy as is their color coded terror alert system.

Well that's a shame. Maybe one day you'll be confident in your intelligence community again; you could be the difference.

[Darth Wong]

Alerts that are generated with 4 year old intelligence, surveillance photos that were updated in January and happen to come out right after the DNC and last until Election day, a constant reminder of the threat your under and so please vote Bush?

Coincidence. Until you convince me that the Democrats sitting in Homeland Security would sit on their hands and therefore support Bush, it's just coincidence. Like the prison scandal drowinging out May's great job figures. Like some other scandal drowning out Junes.

Oh puh-lease, you make it sound as if the timing of these events was totally out of the Bush Administratin's hands, like the prison abuse scandal was. It can hardly be considered coincidence if you know for a fact that the party responsible for the event (in this case, the alert) is the one you are accusing of causing the event, for fuck's sake.

[BoredShirtless]

Give me a break. It doesn't save shit.

You don't know that. The raise in awarness triggered by an alert could be the difference between someone ignoring an abandoned suitcase in a train station, and noticing it.

Security guards should always be aware of such things.

And? Clearly I was refering to raising the awarness of people who use trains to go to work, Uni, whatever. No train station on this planet has enough hired security to ensure the safety of the station, hence the public needs the public to carry that burden too.

That kind of shit can happen at any time, anywhere, if someone gets pissed off enough.

What's your point? Mine was if you can make people more alert, the chances of noticing odd things might be greater.

You're partly right; the alerts do generate fear. But that's a good thing, if intelligence says an attack could happen. Because when people are afriad, they are more awake, and pay closer attention to their surrondings.

Except that Ridge has cried wolf so many times that everyone realizes, by now, that he's a sack of shit stuck to Bush's nipple.

How do you know his previous alerts haven't stopped terrorist attacks?

Do you know the story behind the latest alert? As soon as the guy was captured, "terrorist chatter" [or whatever the term they use] went down. In fact it fucked up a Pakistani sting operation. Like I said before, the department wouldn't release alerts for political reasone like you're suggesting because the Democrats sitting in the department wouldn't just sit back and let that kind of bullshit fly.

Of course I know the story behind it. That story only proves my point. What kind of dumb-asses would tell the world that they've captured the guy who was in charge of relaying al Qaeda's messages through the internet and through various communication channels? Of course terrorist chatter dropped! Any intelligence agent worth half his weight in salt could've told you that would happen! But they did it anyway and fucked up a Pakistani sting operation that could've brought more of the terrorists in. The only explanation I can see is that they needed something to get people scared enough to forget about the DNC. That or total, inexcusable incompetence, and Ridge's penchant of orally massaging the Bush campaign makes me lean toward the latter. Either way, these people shouldn't be running that operation.

No doubt it was stupid to release that guys name....in hindsight. I think the idea was his name would give substance to the alert; make the doubters like you believe in it more because there's a name behind it. Bad decision now, because now we all know the Pakistanis where in the middle of a sting. But did Ridge know that, hence proving him incompetent or a political tool? Prove it if you can. Releasing the name by itself isn't neccessarly incompetance, if it manages to convince enough Americans that the threat is real.

Once again you're forgetting that there are Democrats in Homeland Security. Do you really think they'd let politcally motivated announcments fly by without saying anything?

And who runs it? TOM RIDGE! A BUSH APPOINTEE! He can say whatever he damn well pleases in his little press announcements, and he can call them whenever he damn well pleases.

Oh plu-heze! Even the CEO of a company can't say whatever he damn well pleases. You're suggesting that department is run like a dictatorship; prove it. Prove he doesn't have some kind of board he has to run alerts through before releasing them. Or in other words, prove he is answereable to only himself. It's a ludicrous claim, and I need proof before believing it.

And do you really think a Democrat working with Homeland Security who came out saying that Ridge is a party-line asshole would be with that agency for much longer?

I don't know. And a whistle blower doesn't need to go public with his or her identity as you're apparently implying.

There are plenty of ways to get people to shut up about the internal goings-on in an organization.

There are also plenty of leaks in any organisation. Espeically one consisting of the two major parties...in an election year no less.

The alerts are based on real intelligence. Maybe that intelligence is wrong, but that isn't the issue.

No, the issue is that the intelligence is old and unreliable, but they still try to whip up some panic from it.

Old doesn't neccessarily mean "wrong". And how do you know it was unreliable?

[JME2]

BS, Intelligence that's four years old isn't exactly up to speed; the intelligence used to justify the war with Iraq is such an example.

[The Kernel]

Old doesn't neccessarily mean "wrong". And how do you know it was unreliable?

Because it mentioned threats to buildings before 9/11. Does that really sound like a threat that is anything new and thus justifies moving the terror level?

[BoredShirtless]

Oh puh-lease, you make it sound as if the timing of these events was totally out of the Bush Administratin's hands, like the prison abuse scandal was.

I didn't say the timing was out of the Bush Admins hands; I said it was in their hands AND the Democrats. It's a conspiracy theory to say that those alerts where timed by JUST the Bush Admin to shift focus from John Kerry...prove it. Prove the Democrats in the department would go along with the conspiracy.

[BoredShirtless]

Old doesn't neccessarily mean "wrong". And how do you know it was unreliable?

Because it mentioned threats to buildings before 9/11. Does that really sound like a threat that is anything new and thus justifies moving the terror level?

I don't know, because I don't have the total picture. Do you?

[JME2]

Old doesn't neccessarily mean "wrong". And how do you know it was unreliable?

Because it mentioned threats to buildings before 9/11. Does that really sound like a threat that is anything new and thus justifies moving the terror level?

I don't know, because I don't have the total picture. Do you?

If the Bushies have their way, we never will have the total picture.

[The Kernel]

I don't know, because I don't have the total picture. Do you?

Of course not, but I'm not about to lay my trust in the lap of the Bush Administration on such shaky evidence. They chose to go public with their evidence, it turned out to be BS, and that's end of story. Sorry, but after reading this article and seeing many other actions by the Bush Administration with their use of faulty intelligence to deliberately mislead people, I simply do not trust them. And why should I either? Would you trust someone who constantly lies to you without hard evidence? Especially when the situation is such that if they were lying it would be awfully convenient?

[BoredShirtless]

BS, Intelligence that's four years old isn't exactly up to speed; the intelligence used to justify the war with Iraq is such an example.

The intelligence used for Iraq was wrong, that was the problem. Who would have cared if it was 4 years old if it was right?

[Darth Wong]

Oh puh-lease, you make it sound as if the timing of these events was totally out of the Bush Administratin's hands, like the prison abuse scandal was.

I didn't say the timing was out of the Bush Admins hands; I said it was in their hands AND the Democrats. It's a conspiracy theory to say that those alerts where timed by JUST the Bush Admin to shift focus from John Kerry...prove it. Prove the Democrats in the department would go along with the conspiracy.

Prove to me that they have enough influence to be in a position to do anything about it. We know that the leadership of this department is controlled by the Bush Administration, so to protest that the Bush Administration has nothing to do with the department's actions is either ridiculous or dishonest.

[BoredShirtless]

I don't know, because I don't have the total picture. Do you?

Of course not, but I'm not about to lay my trust in the lap of the Bush Administration on such shaky evidence.

Homeland Security is NOT the Bush Admin! It's a combination of Republicans AND Democrats!

They chose to go public with their evidence, it turned out to be BS, and that's end of story. Sorry, but after reading this article and seeing many other actions by the Bush Administration with their use of faulty intelligence to deliberately mislead people, I simply do not trust them. And why should I either? Would you trust someone who constantly lies to you without hard evidence? Especially when the situation is such that if they were lying it would be awfully convenient?

Two things:
1. Refer above; NOT Bush Admin!
2. Why would Homeland Security lie about a terrorist attack? It drains and distracts people, hence hurts productivity, hence effects the economy. Why?

[Stormbringer]

Once again you're forgetting that there are Democrats in Homeland Security. Do you really think they'd let politcally motivated announcments fly by without saying anything?

The alerts are based on real intelligence. Maybe that intelligence is wrong, but that isn't the issue.

Alright then, who are these democrats and how much influence do they have?

http://www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/index.htm

I have no idea how much influence they have. But they wouldn't keep their mouths shut if the Republicans in their department started releasing alerts without intelligence to substantiate them.

A) That's a House Select Committe link, not the Department of Homeland Security

B) They don't even list members

All that in no way proves your notion that Homeland Security and others are acting in a non-partisan manner. So far nothing you've done has rebutted the notion that the Republicans (and Republican appointees) are not abusing the system.

I personally think that this is more a case of the Bush administration being rather feckless in this case but it's in no way proven.

[BoredShirtless]

Oh puh-lease, you make it sound as if the timing of these events was totally out of the Bush Administratin's hands, like the prison abuse scandal was.

I didn't say the timing was out of the Bush Admins hands; I said it was in their hands AND the Democrats. It's a conspiracy theory to say that those alerts where timed by JUST the Bush Admin to shift focus from John Kerry...prove it. Prove the Democrats in the department would go along with the conspiracy.

Prove to me that they have enough influence to be in a position to do anything about it.

Only if you can prove to me that the Bush Admin has enough influence to shut the mouths of the Democrats.

We know that the leadership of this department is controlled by the Bush Administration,

No we don't. We know he was appointed by the Bush Admin; we do NOT know he is controlled by it.

so to protest that the Bush Administration has nothing to do with the department's actions is either ridiculous or dishonest.

For sure it'd have some kind of influence; but is it enough to control the timing of alerts? Prove it if you can.

[BoredShirtless]

A) That's a House Select Committe link, not the Department of Homeland Security

Uh ok....what does that mean? That there are no Democrats in Homeland Security? I actually heard it on CNN that there are...?

All that in no way proves your notion that Homeland Security and others are acting in a non-partisan manner.

If there are Democrats, they are by definidition there to enforce non-patisanship. Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is patisan.

So far nothing you've done has rebutted the notion that the Republicans (and Republican appointees) are not abusing the system.

Your assertion; prove it.

[The Kernel]

Homeland Security is NOT the Bush Admin! It's a combination of Republicans AND Democrats!

Funny, who was the one out there defending the evidence that had been presented? Why none other than Condie Rice!

Don't give me this shit about it being a bi-partisan effort, the Democrats do not want the terror alert raised between now and election day and there is no way they would ciphon votes from Kerry based on four year old evidence. Immediate threats I could believe, but not this bullshit.

[Durandal]

And? Clearly I was refering to raising the awarness of people who use trains to go to work, Uni, whatever. No train station on this planet has enough hired security to ensure the safety of the station, hence the public needs the public to carry that burden too.

Which is why you don't raise the alert level unless you are damn sure of something! Otherwise, the public, who you're trying to keep vigilant by playing roller-coaster games with this silly terror alert scale, become complacent and start to think that the terror alerts are total bullshit. And so far, they have been!

How do you know his previous alerts haven't stopped terrorist attacks?

Prove that they have. After each alert, information has come out suggesting that the alert was premature or unwarranted, just like the latest one. And in the case of those alerts that were not followed with such revelations, the alerts were so vague and nebulous as to be of no use to anyone.

No doubt it was stupid to release that guys name....in hindsight. I think the idea was his name would give substance to the alert; make the doubters like you believe in it more because there's a name behind it.

And that doesn't make you cast doubt on the veracity of their claims?! They were more concerned with the alert appearing to be genuine than a potential fuck-up of a foreign sting operation in the country in which the most wanted man in the world is believed to reside! Keep digging yourself in deeper.

Bad decision now, because now we all know the Pakistanis where in the middle of a sting. But did Ridge know that, hence proving him incompetent or a political tool? Prove it if you can. Releasing the name by itself isn't neccessarly incompetance, if it manages to convince enough Americans that the threat is real.

Which it might have done, right up until everyone found out the warning was based on intelligence collected before September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda is known for drawing up big plans and then shelving them. Do you really think they're still working on the same shit they were four years ago, especially with having their organization fragmented with its base of power in Afghanistan destroyed? They've been focused on rebuilding for the past couple years, and you think they're going to launch another major offensive on US soil? The kind of demonstrations they want to carry out on the US in particular take years of planning.

Oh plu-heze! Even the CEO of a company can't say whatever he damn well pleases. You're suggesting that department is run like a dictatorship; prove it. Prove he doesn't have some kind of board he has to run alerts through before releasing them. Or in other words, prove he is answereable to only himself. It's a ludicrous claim, and I need proof before believing it.

Do you even have a list of who is on the Homeland Security team? I don't have to prove shit. The facts speak for themselves. So far, every terror alert issued has been bogus, and I simply cannot believe that they're just that fucking incompetent. No, the Bush administration is doing what it's famous for. Taking second-rate intelligence and playing it up to say what they want it to say. They have a history of this kind of bullshit. What makes you think it doesn't extend to Homeland Security? Because there might be Democrats there? Oh wonderful. There were Democrats in Congress, and we went to war with Iraq anyway, you fucking nimrod.

Old doesn't neccessarily mean "wrong". And how do you know it was unreliable?

See above and use your fucking brain.

[JME2]

BS, Intelligence that's four years old isn't exactly up to speed; the intelligence used to justify the war with Iraq is such an example.

The intelligence used for Iraq was wrong, that was the problem. Who would have cared if it was 4 years old if it was right?

Look, it if had been Gore that went into Iraq, that would have been one thing. But we went in under the watch of a man whose family had a long, ugly history with Saddam, who had oil companies supporting his agenda, whose advisors tried to force Richard Clarke to locate an AQ/Iraq link in the days after Sept. 11 -- the list goes on and on.

Face the facts: The Bushies intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning of their regime; Sept. 11 and the fallout from that day simply provided the means for an invasion that never should have happened the way it did.

[BoredShirtless]

Which is why you don't raise the alert level unless you are damn sure of something!

How often do you think they'd have the required intelligence to be "damn sure of something"? If they went by those standards, they'd probably never issue an alert.

Otherwise, the public, who you're trying to keep vigilant by playing roller-coaster games with this silly terror alert scale, become complacent and start to think that the terror alerts are total bullshit. And so far, they have been!

Prove they where "total bullshit". All you've got is: nothing happened, and the intelligence was old/interrupted a sting. Those two things don't prove the terror alerts didn't in fact disrupt attack/s. I'm not asserting they did; you are asserting they didn't. So prove it.

How do you know his previous alerts haven't stopped terrorist attacks?

Prove that they have.

Why should I? You're the one asserting these terror alerts don't work, and are mocking them for being only a political tool yielded by the Bush Admin to disrupt John Kerry.

After each alert, information has come out suggesting that the alert was premature or unwarranted, just like the latest one.

You're very confused. The latest was only premature because it fucked up a sting operation; that in no way means the alert didn't work.

And in the case of those alerts that were not followed with such revelations, the alerts were so vague and nebulous as to be of no use to anyone.

Define "vague"....and what are you basing your assertion that they were of no use to anyone?

No doubt it was stupid to release that guys name....in hindsight. I think the idea was his name would give substance to the alert; make the doubters like you believe in it more because there's a name behind it.

And that doesn't make you cast doubt on the veracity of their claims?!

Why the fuck should it? Just because they released his name? So fucking what?

They were more concerned with the alert appearing to be genuine than a potential fuck-up of a foreign sting operation in the country in which the most wanted man in the world is believed to reside!

You're either saying:
1. The Bush Admin KNEW of the sting operation, yet still released his name.
2. The Bush Admin considered a possible sting operation, yet went ahead and put its own needs [to make the alert more genuine] in front of the sting.

Which is it? If it's 1, prove it. 2, prove they had considered a "possible sting operation". And by the way, the sting operation is besides the point; did the alert prevent a terrorist attack is the real question.

Bad decision now, because now we all know the Pakistanis where in the middle of a sting. But did Ridge know that, hence proving him incompetent or a political tool? Prove it if you can. Releasing the name by itself isn't neccessarly incompetance, if it manages to convince enough Americans that the threat is real.

Which it might have done, right up until everyone found out the warning was based on intelligence collected before September 11, 2001.

Intelligence has a use by date? What's the duration? For me, it's not the age of intelligence; it's all about is it right. Naturally the older it gets, the less reliable it becomes; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's suddenly of no use, especially if it still fits into the "bigger picture", whatever that bigger picture was/is.

Al Qaeda is known for drawing up big plans and then shelving them.

It was also NOT known for flying planes into buildings...don't assume it'll always function the way it has in the past. Al Qaeda is not a robot; it can change tactics on the fly, do something you least expect; like taking from the shelf a shelved plan.

Do you really think they're still working on the same shit they were four years ago, especially with having their organization fragmented with its base of power in Afghanistan destroyed?

I don't know what to think because I'm not privy to the intelligence sitting in the US government. Are you? So since I don't know the intelligence, I can't form conclusions. Hence I will leave that up to the people who DO have the intelligence; Homeland Security.

They've been focused on rebuilding for the past couple years, and you think they're going to launch another major offensive on US soil?

Why the fuck not? The best time to attack an enemy is to attack him when he least expects it. And you're proving very nicely you are NOT expecting it.

The kind of demonstrations they want to carry out on the US in particular take years of planning.

What are the "demonstrations" they want to carry out? And if you don't know them [I'm assuming you don't] how do you know how long they would take to plan? And even if the next strike requires years of planning...how do you know there isn't a cell who's done just that?

Oh plu-heze! Even the CEO of a company can't say whatever he damn well pleases. You're suggesting that department is run like a dictatorship; prove it. Prove he doesn't have some kind of board he has to run alerts through before releasing them. Or in other words, prove he is answereable to only himself. It's a ludicrous claim, and I need proof before believing it.

Do you even have a list of who is on the Homeland Security team? I don't have to prove shit. The facts speak for themselves. So far, every terror alert issued has been bogus,

How do you fucking know they where all bogus! Prove it for fucks sakes! Here's a tip: repeating the intel was old and that a sting operation was interrupted does NOT prove the alerts where bogus.

and I simply cannot believe that they're just that fucking incompetent. No, the Bush administration is doing what it's famous for. Taking second-rate intelligence and playing it up to say what they want it to say. They have a history of this kind of bullshit. What makes you think it doesn't extend to Homeland Security? Because there might be Democrats there? Oh wonderful. There were Democrats in Congress, and we went to war with Iraq anyway, you fucking nimrod.

In yellow; another unproven assertion. Do you really think appealing to the Bush Admins history proves anything?

Old doesn't neccessarily mean "wrong". And how do you know it was unreliable?

See above and use your fucking brain.

That's very funny, coming from a guy who's essentially tried to pass off a bunch of historical Bush fuckups as proof that Homeland Securities terror alerts are bullshit and to be mocked.

[BoredShirtless]

Homeland Security is NOT the Bush Admin! It's a combination of Republicans AND Democrats!

Funny, who was the one out there defending the evidence that had been presented? Why none other than Condie Rice!

Woooooo! They picked Condie to appear on 60 Minutes/CNN/Whatever! Clearly then Homeland Security is nothing more then a puppet controlled by the Drunken Texan Cowboy!

Don't give me this shit about it being a bi-partisan effort, the Democrats do not want the terror alert raised between now and election day

Can you for one fucking second stop and think outside November? Homeland Securities mandate superceedes the upcoming election. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it is corrupt. PROVE IT FOR FUCKS SAKES! Stop appealing to history.

and there is no way they would ciphon votes from Kerry based on four year old evidence. Immediate threats I could believe, but not this bullshit.

What bullshit is that? How do you know the alert revolving around the 4 year intel was unfounded? Was the intel still accurate? Just because it was 4 years old, doesn't mean it's automatically rubbish.

[The Kernel]

Can you for one fucking second stop and think outside November? Homeland Securities mandate superceedes the upcoming election. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it is corrupt. PROVE IT FOR FUCKS SAKES! Stop appealing to history.

And what pray tell is wrong with "appealing to history"? The Bush Administration has constantly manipulated the terror threat for political gain, so why should I believe that they are not doing this here, especially considering that it stands to benefit their side?

What bullshit is that? How do you know the alert revolving around the 4 year intel was unfounded? Was the intel still accurate? Just because it was 4 years old, doesn't mean it's automatically rubbish.

Because the Democrats (and even some of the GOP) are claiming that it is bullshit. I may not have the full information, but I'm assuming that they do and they think it is a cheap ploy by President Bush to win political points for the November election.

[Durandal]

How often do you think they'd have the required intelligence to be "damn sure of something"? If they went by those standards, they'd probably never issue an alert.

And going by what we've seen so far, they would've never had to.

Prove they where "total bullshit". All you've got is: nothing happened, and the intelligence was old/interrupted a sting. Those two things don't prove the terror alerts didn't in fact disrupt attack/s. I'm not asserting they did; you are asserting they didn't. So prove it.

The alerts are either vague or shown to be based on false information after they are issued.

Why should I? You're the one asserting these terror alerts don't work, and are mocking them for being only a political tool yielded by the Bush Admin to disrupt John Kerry.

No, you're making the claim that the terror alerts save lives. As far as I can tell, the government has issued alerts, and there have been no attacks, nor has the "vigilante public" spotted anything noteworthy, as you believe they are bound to do if kept under a constant fear of attack.

You're very confused. The latest was only premature because it fucked up a sting operation; that in no way means the alert didn't work.

No dumb-ass, it was based on old intelligence with little relevance to today's terrorist climate.

Define "vague"....and what are you basing your assertion that they were of no use to anyone?

Bullshit like "the terrorists plan to disrupt the democratic process" with absolutely no elaboration at all. How is that useful to the general public? What are they going to do with that information?

Why the fuck should it? Just because they released his name? So fucking what?

Because they elected to fuck up a foreign sting operation rather than have their report look a little less credible!

You're either saying:
1. The Bush Admin KNEW of the sting operation, yet still released his name.
2. The Bush Admin considered a possible sting operation, yet went ahead and put its own needs [to make the alert more genuine] in front of the sting.

Which is it? If it's 1, prove it. 2, prove they had considered a "possible sting operation". And by the way, the sting operation is besides the point; did the alert prevent a terrorist attack is the real question.

Based on the information that has come to light, no, it has not.

Intelligence has a use by date? What's the duration? For me, it's not the age of intelligence; it's all about is it right. Naturally the older it gets, the less reliable it becomes; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's suddenly of no use, especially if it still fits into the "bigger picture", whatever that bigger picture was/is.

See my explanation, moron. The world's changed a lot in the past 4 years.

It was also NOT known for flying planes into buildings...don't assume it'll always function the way it has in the past. Al Qaeda is not a robot; it can change tactics on the fly, do something you least expect; like taking from the shelf a shelved plan.

Totally invalid comparison. A plan is shelved for a reason: because it wasn't feasible.

I don't know what to think because I'm not privy to the intelligence sitting in the US government. Are you? So since I don't know the intelligence, I can't form conclusions. Hence I will leave that up to the people who DO have the intelligence; Homeland Security.

Funny, all the Iraq apologists said the same thing, and you were busy pissing about that, you fucking hypocrite.

Why the fuck not? The best time to attack an enemy is to attack him when he least expects it. And you're proving very nicely you are NOT expecting it.

No, the best time to launch an attack is when your enemy least expects it and when you have the manpower, resources and planning to launch that attack.

What are the "demonstrations" they want to carry out? And if you don't know them [I'm assuming you don't] how do you know how long they would take to plan? And even if the next strike requires years of planning...how do you know there isn't a cell who's done just that?

Because the organization has been disrupted and fragmented since it lost its base of power in Afghanistan, shit-head.

How do you fucking know they where all bogus! Prove it for fucks sakes! Here's a tip: repeating the intel was old and that a sting operation was interrupted does NOT prove the alerts where bogus.

Name one instance of a terror alert panning out into something real. Name one instance of the vigilante public spotting something they would otherwise not have because of a terror alert. After all, your stated sole reason for these silly alerts is to keep the public vigilante ... so what good has that done?

In yellow; another unproven assertion. Do you really think appealing to the Bush Admins history proves anything?

Um ... yes? There's no such thing as an "appeal to history" fallacy you fucking idiot.

That's very funny, coming from a guy who's essentially tried to pass off a bunch of historical Bush fuckups as proof that Homeland Securities terror alerts are bullshit and to be mocked.

Yes, silly me. I've used proof of people who have a history of manipulating intelligence for their personal gain to show that they're manipulating intelligence for their personal gain.

[Stravo]

As I reread this thread sure that I saw something earlier about BS's well...BS I stumbled across the crux of this argument that has him spinning his wheels and I chuckled.

He states several times:

Oh puh-lease, you make it sound as if the timing of these events was totally out of the Bush Administratin's hands, like the prison abuse scandal was.

I didn't say the timing was out of the Bush Admins hands; I said it was in their hands AND the Democrats. It's a conspiracy theory to say that those alerts where timed by JUST the Bush Admin to shift focus from John Kerry...prove it. Prove the Democrats in the department would go along with the conspiracy.

So here we see he is stressing that the Department of Homeland Securoty has this group of democrats that supposed to make it fair. You see any moron would know that the executive branch (Republicans BS) would appoint people to run these agencies. They are called secretaries. Would you say BS that there are democrats that can shut Rummy up in the dept of defense?

So upon further reading we see the stupidity that is BS when Stormbringer clarrifies the situation. Watch the back pedal:

A) That's a House Select Committe link, not the Department of Homeland Security

Uh ok....what does that mean? That there are no Democrats in Homeland Security? I actually heard it on CNN that there are...?

All that in no way proves your notion that Homeland Security and others are acting in a non-partisan manner.

If there are Democrats, they are by definidition there to enforce non-patisanship. Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is patisan.

Oh, BS you make this so fucking easy when you don't understand what the fuck it is you are arguing, hence I provide a

link that lists the leadership of the Dept. of Homeland security. Oh lookie....all Bush appointees or people appointed by Ridge (who happen to be business leaders and the like, who knew?)

Next time, shut the fuck up and educate yourself about what you spew.

[Durandal]

He's since abandoned that argument in favor of "Well issuing periodic alerts keeps the public vigilant." Naturally, he completely ignores the fact that none of these alerts have led to Joe Public spotting a terrorist or reporting something that has averted a terrorist attack.