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

> http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-07.html

>

> ...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)