US Jeprodizes War on Terror to Justify Alert Status

[Stravo]

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.

Damnit, Durandal, you of all people should realize that there are successes we will NEVER hear about.

[Durandal]

Yes, and we have to be right 100% of the time, while they only have to be right 1% of the time, bla bla bla.

[BoredShirtless]

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.

Wrong. I never said they saved lives; I've just been asking the question. Their job by definition is to save lives. That's my argument, and why I'm saying it should be given a little bit of respect.

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.

Again, you're wrong. I don't believe that raising alerts automatically means that someone has to find a suitcase nuke or foil an attack. I only believe that if they are raised, they are being raised for a reason. And therefore the public should be made aware of the heightened risk of an 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.

How do you know that it has 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?

Yeah, that one was bullshit.

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!

Once AGAIN you repeat the assertion that the Bush Admin KNEW about the sting, without a proof to prove it. Where's your evidence?

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.

Wooo, the worlds changed a lot in 4 years! It changed a lot too in a week. I asked you what the "use by duration" is; name it. It takes more then fucking time elapsed to invalidate intelligence.

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.

And why isn't a plan feasible? Many reasons; one is because they don't have the resources to execute it [what you're saying]....but plans can also be infeasible if the enemy is expecting it.

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.

You poor little baby; why would it piss you off that I'm arguing for Homeland Security? You are a real dumbass for not working out WHY, so here it is: Homeland Security has not been sanctioned nor inspected for over 8 years; it has not been shown to be a non-imminent threat; and it is not invading anybody.

Until it is shown to be corrupt, why should I assume that it is? I need proof to believe that the President, even though a complete wanker, would subvert Homeland Security to the extent that its alerts are totally useless, used to take focus from John Kerry only.

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.

Ah. So you think Al Qaeda hasn't the resources to attack you! What makes you think that?

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.

It was always fragmented moron, didn't you catch the buzzword "cells"? As far as I know, OBL had nothing to do with the Madrid bombing. That was done by a cell full of Moroccans and other nationals; the only thing they had in common with the cells in Afghanistan is the name "Al Qaeda".

Sure they have been disrupted since it lost Afghanistan; but you'd have to be a cocky bastard to then think that it lost its ability to launch a major attack. Madrid was bombed AFTER Afghanistan was lost.

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?

Even though nothing has happened so far, doesn't mean it's a bad idea or that they are "silly".

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.

If you where committing a logical fallacy I would have said the word "fallacy". I repeat; do you really think appealing to the Bush Admins history proves anything?

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.

Bwahahaha! Keep dreaming. You haven't show that by any stretch of your wide, gaping imagination.

[BoredShirtless]

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?

Ah. So according to you, only morons don't know how the US government works in detail. Why is that? Because everyone is educated on how the US government works, and has to be a moron if it doesn't sink? Even though said education is COMLETELY WORTHLESS to the majority of the worlds population, you jingoistic twit?

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?)

Fair enough. I was probably mistaken on what I heard on CNN.

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

Victory! I can nearly see your arms raised from over here. Enjoy.

[BoredShirtless]

He's since abandoned that argument in favor of "Well issuing periodic alerts keeps the public vigilant."

Strawman distortion, I never said that.

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.

Doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.

[Stravo]

Ah. So according to you, only morons don't know how the US government works in detail. Why is that? Because everyone is educated on how the US government works, and has to be a moron if it doesn't sink? Even though said education is COMLETELY WORTHLESS to the majority of the worlds population, you jingoistic twit?

No jerk off, if you're going to argue a point so vehemently about how the US Government works then KNOW IT asshole. If you don't then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[JME2]

Ah. So according to you, only morons don't know how the US government works in detail. Why is that? Because everyone is educated on how the US government works, and has to be a moron if it doesn't sink? Even though said education is COMLETELY WORTHLESS to the majority of the worlds population, you jingoistic twit?

No jerk off, if you're going to argue a point so vehemently about how the US Governbment works then KNOW IT asshole. If you don't then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

(singing and dancing)

Go Stravo, go Stravo. Yeah!

[PainRack]

Once AGAIN you repeat the assertion that the Bush Admin KNEW about the sting, without a proof to prove it. Where's your evidence?
.

This is the same Bush adminstration who refused to release names about Guatenmo Bay captives, or the British nationals there and in Afghanistan, who routinely make claims about stuff like Malaysia is a terrorist front, without saying any intelligence sources, all in the name of security.

And they fuck up now?. Bollocks, some of the other security lapses that Bush has underwent is understandable, but this is not it.

[tharkûn]

Welcome to damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If you release information that substantiates your claims, then you are going to potentially help the enemy. And people will bitch about it.

If you don't release information to substantiate your claims, then you don't risk potentially helping the enemy; but hordes of people scream that there is no evidence and thus all claims of success must be BS.

Anything substantial needs to be classified, anything that doesn't need to be classified isn't going to be substantial. It's a bloody shame that the Bush administration would rather appease the "show us the proof" crowd than tell the lot of 'em to jump off a cliff.

[Stravo]

Welcome to damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Or grow a pair of political balls and stick to your guns. Instead they did a double whammy and stopped further captures of Al-Qaeda agents and still didn't satisfy the "Show me prrof crowd." Its called leadership and as usual there is a vacuous void in the White House.

[tharkûn]

Or grow a pair of political balls and stick to your guns. Instead they did a double whammy and stopped further captures of Al-Qaeda agents and still didn't satisfy the "Show me prrof crowd." Its called leadership and as usual there is a vacuous void in the White House.

I said they would rather appease; I did not say they effectively did so.

As for the lack of spine, as I said it is a damned shame. I'm firmly of the opinion that anything remotely useful to the enemy is classified unless a damned good reason for disclosure exists.

[PainRack]

I said they would rather appease; I did not say they effectively did so.

As for the lack of spine, as I said it is a damned shame. I'm firmly of the opinion that anything remotely useful to the enemy is classified unless a damned good reason for disclosure exists.

That's all nice and dainty, but the Bush adminstration doesn't. Do. It.

For some obscure reason, basic security measures appears to be either beyond their understanding, or as Durandel implies, subjected to politics and the election.

Its not so bad when Bush security lapses only affect them, but when they affect others, I don't see why others countries should suffer, or have to play damage control just to cover up Bush incompetence or political plays.