Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:44:34 -0700 From: Tavares@ALUM.MIT.EDU ("C. D. Tavares") Subject: Re: ESSAY: The Terror Alert They Won't Issue To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
At 3:27 PM -0700 6/9/02, Taliesin MacAran wrote:
> The Terror Alert They Won't Issue
> Richard Forno
> ...May 24: The FBI warns that terrorists may develop an "offensive scuba
>diver capability" to conduct attacks. Several people I spoke with shook
>their heads in disbelief over he actual possibility of 'terrorist scuba
>divers' -- and wondered why the public needed to know about this potential
>threat since the NIPC alert stated that "while there is no evidence of
>operational planning to utilize scuba divers to carry out attacks...
> But given the established reality that America's terrorist adversaries
>will use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals, is it really
>necessary to warn us about each and every one of them? The very nature of
>terrorism means the target (in this case, the United States) can't defend
>against all potential avenues of attack; so why must we be inundated with
>nebulous, vaguely-worded alerts based on slim evidence?
> Doing so - however well-intentioned - only serves to frighten the average
>American citizen and make them perpetually uneasy - not a very helpful
>situation when they're trying to recover and move on with their personal
>and family lives in the aftermath of September 11 as previously-instructed
>by the government.
"Not a helpful situation?" Nonsense. It's precisely what the government wants. What did you think all the fnords were for?
Oops, I forgot -- most of you still can't see the fnords, can you? :-) -- Tavares@alum.mit.edu | http://alum.mit.edu/www/tavares | RKBA!
The threat posed by humans to the natural environment is nothing compared to the threat to humans posed by global environmental policy. --FRED L. SMITH (1992)