• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Feelin High-Security Alert Level

jswift872

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Well it is up again, the United States raised the Level of a possible terrorist attack to "high"       http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091369903535_69/?hub=TopStories      

what do ya think, think it is a legitimate because they gave specific buildings and targets?



Sun. Aug. 1 2004 11:50 PM ET  
U.S. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge makes the announcement
U.S. security level up to 'high' in some areas
CTV.ca News Staff

The U.S. threat risk level was raised for certain iconic financial targets in the wake of what's been called the most specific terror threat since 9/11.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced Sunday that the security alert level in some U.S. financial centres has been raised from "elevated" to "high."

According to the security level chart released by U.S. officials, a high level of security alert is characterized by the colour orange. Ridge specified that the alert level is to remain at yellow or "elevated," in the rest of the country.

"Reports indicate that al Qaeda is targeting several specific buildings," Ridge said. He added that actions to further secure these buildings are already underway.

The affected areas include the financial services industries in New York, Washington and Newark, New Jersey. Ridge specifically mentioned the following institutions:

Citicorp building (New York City)
The New York Stock Exchange
International Monetary Fund (Washington, D.C.)
World Bank (Washington, D.C.)
Prudential building (Newark, N.J.)
Ridge said he'd like to think that as sobering as the new information is, he hopes the people who work at the specifically-mentioned buildings would have the resolve to keep working and "leading their lives."

He said that although the announcement was "startling," it shouldn't be "stifling" to the American people.

Ridge said there was no time frame for the attacks, except that their aim would be to disrupt the American democratic process. American citizens are scheduled to vote in presidential elections on November 2.

Reports suggest the intelligence comes from an al Qaeda operative overseas. It is bolstered by intercepted communications and documents obtained by the CIA.

"The quality of this intelligence based on multiple reporting streams, in multiple locations, is rarely seen and it is alarming both in the amount and the specificity of the information," he said.

The terrorists had analyzed traffic patterns, security measures and the types of explosives needed to melt the steel of their intended targets.

"What is scaring people tonight is that a number of intelligence sources that come together in a consistent story going back over two years," said former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke. "It's a consistent story that al Qaeda is alive and well."

He dismissed suggestions the warning was being given for political gain.

It appears that the security scare is linked to the July 19 arrest of a woman of Pakistani origin, who entered the U.S. from Mexico by crossing the Rio Grande and crawling through the fields. She had an altered passport, thousands of dollars in cash and a plane ticket to New York City.


In a press conference Sunday, New York City's mayor Michael Bloomberg urged New Yorkers to be vigilant in the face of the new threats, but also to go about their business.

"What they should do is get up tomorrow morning and go to work and enjoy the freedoms of New York," Bloomberg said. "I repeat, you should go about your business."

City officials said that those working at the named buildings will be protected. "We've done everything we possibly can to make these places safe for business tomorrow," said New York City Commissioner Raymond Kelly at the press conference.

Kelly said that heavily-armed special forces units, known as Hercules troops, will be deployed to the sites. He said that all traffic will be monitored, especially trucks and larger vehicles at key locations funneling into the city.

Bloomberg said that New York's landmarks and special events would receive increased protection. However, he warned police and security forces couldn't be everywhere.

"There's no question that there's a limited number of resources," he said. "But we will spend the money to do what has to be done."

In response to a reporter's question, Bloomberg said that politics had nothing to do with the terror level increase, in spite of recent criticisms of the Department of Homeland Security's timing of announcements.

"There's nothing political about this, as there is hard and fast information," the mayor said. "We would be derelict in our duty not to take this seriously."

New York's police department has advised building managers and corporate security officers to step up their procedures. They specifically mentioned safeguards against vehicles rigged with explosives and chemicals that could be placed in ventilation systems.

A few workers interviewed thought the news was "really scary," but one had this perspective: ""It's definitely worrisome, but you have to get up and do it."


 
It could be a simple as one of the US's "Moles" (Spies) heard one of the Al-Quada guys saying something like "Hey man, maybe we should hit *so and so buildings* next year! That'll really piss'm off!"... So, then heresaid "Mole" reports back to the US officials who then over-react as usual and pushup the security alert, in exchange costing thier tax payers WAY more money and scares a lot of citizens and wastes resources.

If not, it could be a very ligitimate threat that is soon, but as mentioned in the article, they have no time frame... I personally think they obviously should keep thier guard up because of all the sh*t hitting the fan for the US. But hey, it's thier fault! You wanna stick your nose in someone else's sh*t then your going to have to smell it!

Just my thoughts,

Joe
 
Time for your daily dose of fear. I'll get nervous when the colour goes to Plaid
 
Recruit Joe said:
It could be a simple as one of the US's "Moles" (Spies) heard one of the Al-Quada guys saying something like "Hey man, maybe we should hit *so and so buildings* next year! That'll really piss'm off!"... So, then heresaid "Mole" reports back to the US officials who then over-react as usual and pushup the security alert, in exchange costing thier tax payers WAY more money and scares a lot of citizens and wastes resources.

I think you're probably underestimating what goes into raising the terror threat.  I think they're constantly trying to make the system work better, and I wouldn't be surprised if they still had no clear specification of what and when to raise the level.

On the one hand, its easy to say that they overreact.  But you have to remember that just because the level goes up, that doesn't mean that something is going to happen.  Whether they notice an "increase of activity on the channels", or whatever it might be, they make the decision as to where the level might be. 

But I think its important to look at the other side of the coin.  If they didn't raise the terror level, and something did happen, who'd be pissing and moaning?  The same people who piss and moan when the terror level goes up. 

I don't know that the whole idea of the rating system is the greatest, as it doesn't really help anybody.  I think it does involve a little bit (or a whole lot) of fearmongering, and provides, at best, an illusion of safety (which is slowly destroyed every time the level changes).  I don't know. 

If not, it could be a very ligitimate threat that is soon, but as mentioned in the article, they have no time frame... I personally think they obviously should keep thier guard up because of all the sh*t hitting the fan for the US. But hey, it's thier fault! You wanna stick your nose in someone else's sh*t then your going to have to smell it!

Just my thoughts,

Joe

So you're saying that the 9/11 attacks were provoked?  Or at the very least, that if something happened then they'd deserve it?  I noticed another thread where you were practically bragging about the Canadians burning down the Whitehouse (who were actually British regulars, if I recall correctly... somebody correct me if I'm wrong).  Obviously you're anti-american, which is your own perogative, but your ignorance in this matter is very apparant. 
 
A more legitimate concern over the terror-rating system is the danger that people will become indifferent to it. I mean, what is the difference between orange and yellow? Does anyone care anymore? Like the fire warnings here in BC - what is the difference between 'high' and 'extreme'? Should you be less vigilante when it is 'moderate'?
 
None of us know the intelligence behind the raise and none of us work for US Intelligence so really any guessing or speculating we do here will probably be wrong and just out of our collective asses. I do agree the terror warnings really don't tell average Americans how to live and work though. I mean generally speaking the the system is just so the American people know their government is taking action and so they can be reminded that they're at war and need to keep their eyes open everywhere they go.

And yeah Hoser you're right. The War of 1812 was fought by British soldiers and British loyalists against Americans. British regulars burned down the White House and British regulars fought the war. Simple as that.
 
Let's not forget the extremely important role played by the native peoples - the original canadians.
 
nULL said:
Let's not forget the extremely important role played by the native peoples - the original canadians.

Well they played both sides
 
To Hoser,

In this post I just want it to be known I'm not trying to be rude first off!

Yes Hoser, at least in partial, the United States did induce the 9/11 attack. They supported Osama Bin Laden back in the 80s I (maybe 70s) by giving him 3 BILLION dollars, special training on how to operate a militaristic organization with independent cells and agendas (terror training/guerrilla warefare) and that was all to fight off the Russians that were invading Afganistan. Then they turned thier back on him. They basically gave him the finger and screwed him in the a$$...

Not to say Osama wasn't a freak and didn't deserve to be left in the dust. Same with IRAQ, back in the 70s the US gave millions (billions?) and weapons+training to Iraq to fight against Iran and then also eventually the US gave the same to Iran at one point! They flip-flopped all the time!

They've stuck thier noses everywhere. All over the places. Look up info even on "Contra", it was a super secret organization inside the US gov't trading drugs in South American and fighting against "Rebels". That's another story for another thread.

As to who deserves what? The people of the United States of American I feel sorry for. It's not thier collective fault. It's the self serving jackass's they vote into power! And if they vote Bush in AGAIN... My god, someone, save them! I'll have no hope for them. At this point most people would probably think to start digging at what is wrong with Canada's politicians. There is a HUGE mix of mess there, but this thread isn't about that. And I will admit our politicians are just as scandoulous as the next!

Just my two cents.
I'm what some people would call "Anti-American" or "Commie" or "Working-Class-Heroe" or even "Anti-Capatalistic". Call me what you will. I am Pro-People. I've never blamed it on the people of America.

PS> Thanks for the info about burning the White House folks, I didn't actually know that was the British Regulars.
 
Ok, fair enough.

I won't try to pretend that American foreign policy hasn't been a little short-sighted.  But I do think their intentions are good.  If someone honestly disagrees with the way they operate, thats one thing.  I just think there is too much blind hatred/jealousy/whatever towards America in this country. 
 
Well you do have a point there, I'd agree that anything us Canucks see as Canadian or, something we find that sets us apart from our southern friends we super/over indulge about. We always jump the gun and try to point out that we're not like them in some respects so you do have a very valid point!

Also, it's human nature to not like the big dogs ontop sometimes. The "underdog" will eventually try to nip at the heels of the big guy every once in awhile!

:cdn:
 
Time for your daily dose of fear. I'll get nervous when the colour goes to Plaid
Ghost! They Jammed the radar again! Rasberry jam!
 
Here's the answer to what caused the HIGH level.

Captured Qaeda Figure Led Way to Information Behind Warning

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/02intel.html?ei=5006&en=191a653487a53251&ex=1092024000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=
 
I sure am glad they are sticking with "al Qaeda" because "the Organization" would not be as frightening.

Please correct me if my translation is wrong.

 
There is quite a bit of legitimate evidence to support this heightened level of situational awareness.  It was mentioned that this was the first time that the threat has been so specific as well, which does seem odd to some of the int community.  The US Dept of Homeland Security does'nt raise this level when there is a stiff breeze with a hint of Al Qaeda in it, it takes quite a bit of well-sourced intelligence actually.  It's the same for the Canadian PSEPC.  It could all be a ruse, who knows, but personally I would rather them hit the panic button just to be safe.  We should definitely not become complacent to the system and heed its warnings.  Anyone who thinks Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization is not actively planning attacks on the US and probably Canada at this very moment would be very naive.  Complacency in this system is exactly what these people would like, because chances are, the minute we become complacent with it, BOOM! they hit us again.
 
Officials are saying this information of surveillance actually started in 2001. They mentioned that this fits Al Qaeda's mode of operation in that years of planning and surveillance take place before the actual strike. That with the 1993 WTC bombing planning started in 1989 and with the USS Cole bombing planning started 3-4 years previous to that too, hence the rasing of level now which if it fits the ticket then a strike would coincide with the time frame of NOW to disrupt the elections.

Here's a new article saying the attack will take place in September.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usterr033916365aug03,0,2200894,print.story?coll=ny-homepage-big-pix
 
Back
Top