The Cellar - View Single Post

Scred · 06-02-2002, 07:59 AM

The Economist article doesn't read quite the way it was quoted above. It would be prudent to read the original source. it reads slightly different for me when unedited.

anyway, here's a wake up call for the deluded: daily intelligence briefings continuously warn of specific and non-specific attacks. if the president were to "do something about them" every time, then people start bitching about all the false warnings, and then nobody listens anymore. (as we are doing now when we're told the brooklyn bridge, formerly for sale, is now a target). prior to 9/11, *nobody* wanted to hear it. any president that started evacuating cities on every threat or calling press conferences would have been immediately labelled a "Ross Perot" and deemed paranoid and insane. even now, after 9/11, we still think every official who warns us about something is something of a dolt, apparently.

i worked in a facility in King of Prussia for about 5 years. After I had been there for about 3 years, I happened to be near the phones when a non-specific bomb threat was called in. Now, the facility had thousands of people in it, both civilians and employees. I thought, "oh hell, evacuate immediately." quite the contrary, there was no action taken. i was stunned. how could they just ignore a real threat? how stupid were they??

turns out it happened multiple times a week, sometimes every day. for 10 years. and there was no bomb

imagine trying to run, say, a retail establishment (or, a country) that got evacuated every day. would it stay in business? no it wouldn't. now, me, personally, i couldn't make that decision to not sound the alarm. i wouldn't want to. but someone has to. and as soon as a bomb goes off, it is very easy to point out how the person(s) responsible are clearly at fault.

Every government is at fault somewhere. Every person is at fault somewhere. Everything could have been done differently. Bush could have signed the already-prepared attack order for afghanistan in August. Clinton could have done something more than remotely blow up tents in response to the African embassy attacks. We could have stayed and finished our mission in mogadishu instead of running home to mommie and looking weak. we could have acted on intel multiple times to take the guy out. we didn't. and now it's clear that other options would have been better. hindsight is very convenient.

06-02-2002, 07:59 AM	#14
Scred Wharf Rat Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Galaxy Seven, near Phoenixville Posts: 71	The Economist article doesn't read quite the way it was quoted above. It would be prudent to read the original source. it reads slightly different for me when unedited. anyway, here's a wake up call for the deluded: daily intelligence briefings continuously warn of specific and non-specific attacks. if the president were to "do something about them" every time, then people start bitching about all the false warnings, and then nobody listens anymore. (as we are doing now when we're told the brooklyn bridge, formerly for sale, is now a target). prior to 9/11, nobody wanted to hear it. any president that started evacuating cities on every threat or calling press conferences would have been immediately labelled a "Ross Perot" and deemed paranoid and insane. even now, after 9/11, we still think every official who warns us about something is something of a dolt, apparently. i worked in a facility in King of Prussia for about 5 years. After I had been there for about 3 years, I happened to be near the phones when a non-specific bomb threat was called in. Now, the facility had thousands of people in it, both civilians and employees. I thought, "oh hell, evacuate immediately." quite the contrary, there was no action taken. i was stunned. how could they just ignore a real threat? how stupid were they?? turns out it happened multiple times a week, sometimes every day. for 10 years. and there was no bomb imagine trying to run, say, a retail establishment (or, a country) that got evacuated every day. would it stay in business? no it wouldn't. now, me, personally, i couldn't make that decision to not sound the alarm. i wouldn't want to. but someone has to. and as soon as a bomb goes off, it is very easy to point out how the person(s) responsible are clearly at fault. Every government is at fault somewhere. Every person is at fault somewhere. Everything could have been done differently. Bush could have signed the already-prepared attack order for afghanistan in August. Clinton could have done something more than remotely blow up tents in response to the African embassy attacks. We could have stayed and finished our mission in mogadishu instead of running home to mommie and looking weak. we could have acted on intel multiple times to take the guy out. we didn't. and now it's clear that other options would have been better. hindsight is very convenient.