Threat Level

MikeAMikeA Senior MemberPosts: 2,462 Senior Member
After reading the article about the UK attack I’m left wondering how long has there been a threat level? What exactly is the threat level based on? Intel? If you have intel that warrants a “severe threat level” why not take "severe" steps to stop it? Is this the future of western culture now, constantly under threat?
«134567

Comments

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,221 Senior Member
    Now? It's been this way for a while. We've just grown accustomed to it.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 21,201 Senior Member
    We stopped getting the color coding messages once Bush won in 2004, the fear factor was no longer necessary after that.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • CuddyCuddy Senior Member Posts: 344 Senior Member
    Weren't there different colours of threat levels after 9/11? I was just talking to somebody not long ago and was wondering whatever happened to those. I guess it's a good thing they aren't needed?
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,221 Senior Member
    The colors stopped in 2011. Thanks Obama!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisory_System

    OTOH, it's not like people actually were paying attention after Bush's re-election.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 21,201 Senior Member
    We stopped getting them on the news long before that and right after that election. I noted it at the time on this very forum.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    We stopped getting them on the news long before that and right after that election. I noted it at the time on this very forum.

    Well they don't really serve any purpose. I mean look at what's happening despite elevated threat levels.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 21,201 Senior Member
    They served the purpose they were designed for, getting Bush elected.

    And exactly what is happening?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    They served the purpose they were designed for, getting Bush elected.

    And exactly what is happening?

    Nothing, nothing's happening at all. LOL
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    They stood in the centrer of Brussels. Row on row.

    Hands held high, making hearts to the heavens. Showing the slaughtered they were not forgotten. Reminding themselves they were here with love. Looking to show humanity wins. That love conquers all.

    They lay in the center of London, face down where they fell. Stabbed by a knife, rammed with a car, flung, broken, into the Thames, life bleeding out on the curb.

    And the news came thick and fast.
    As the last life-blood of a police officer ran out across the cobbles, the attacker was being stretchered away in an attempt to save his life.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4340290/Truth-t-like-says-KATIE-HOPKINS.html
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,221 Senior Member
    How would changing the US terror level have done anything in... London?
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    How would changing the US terror level have done anything in... London?

    I’m not arguing that it would. I’m saying the threat level is just a feel good measure. My point is, if there is intel, or whatever they use to determine that there is a severe threat (UK was, and still is under a severe threat level) then why aren’t they taking severe steps to stop it? Because, enough people haven’t died yet? If this continues, the people will get sick of cleaning up innocent blood from their streets. If that day ever comes, I fear it won't be one of humanity’s finer moments. I don't think enough is being done to prevent these attacks. Political correctness is going to lead us down a nasty road.
  • CuddyCuddy Senior Member Posts: 344 Senior Member
    What kind of severe steps do you take?
    Throw somebody in jail because they MIGHT carry out an attack, or because they sympathize with a terror group? That's a slippery slope.
    Not to mention that's the kind of stuff that they feed off of, and could even result in more converts to extremism. I'm a believer that every time a drone strike kills a couple of ISIS fighters, it turns on a few cousins and brothers and friends or internet tough guys to extremism. Multiply that every time a drone strike kills a kid or strikes a school/hospital/church...

    That said, I have no idea how to curb it.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,571 Senior Member
    Stop letting Muslims into the UK would be one step.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,754 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I’m not arguing that it would. I’m saying the threat level is just a feel good measure. My point is, if there is intel, or whatever they use to determine that there is a severe threat (UK was, and still is under a severe threat level) then why aren’t they taking severe steps to stop it? Because, enough people haven’t died yet? If this continues, the people will get sick of cleaning up innocent blood from their streets. If that day ever comes, I fear it won't be one of humanity’s finer moments. I don't think enough is being done to prevent these attacks. Political correctness is going to lead us down a nasty road.

    What do you want, martial law? Throw all the Arabs (because you never can tell) into a ghetto?

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,846 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Stop letting Muslims into the UK would be one step.


    sooooo this would have stopped this most recent brittish born attacker how?
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    What do you want, martial law? Throw all the Arabs (because you never can tell) into a ghetto?

    I've got the one thing I want the most. The right to bear arms. UK, not so much.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,754 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I've got the one thing I want the most. The right to bear arms. UK, not so much.

    Can you tell me how many times there have been mass (gun related) shootings in England similar to ours? Just curious.

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Oh good, lets make this about guns..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 1,628 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I’m not arguing that it would. I’m saying the threat level is just a feel good measure. My point is, if there is intel, or whatever they use to determine that there is a severe threat (UK was, and still is under a severe threat level) then why aren’t they taking severe steps to stop it? Because, enough people haven’t died yet? If this continues, the people will get sick of cleaning up innocent blood from their streets. If that day ever comes, I fear it won't be one of humanity’s finer moments. I don't think enough is being done to prevent these attacks. Political correctness is going to lead us down a nasty road.

    define "severe."

    Is it an existential threat? Will it destroy our economy, our culture, our institutions? Of course not.

    How about this: Western countries are resilient societies with well-developed legal, political, economic and cultural norms that will easily thwart the objectives of any attack. The threat level is severe because we choose to see it as severe, and for no other reason. Britain lost 50,000 citizens during the battle of Britain. So. . . you really think this latest go-round is gonna be Britain's undoing?

    I'm not seeking to make light of the casualties from yesterday, as their lives were precious and worthy of protection. Its actually to our credit that a few dead can provoke this response. It means we value the lives of our citizens and don't take their safety lightly. All that means is that these minor attacks generate an outsized response. It doesn't mean the threat is actually severe.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    Cuddy wrote: »
    What kind of severe steps do you take?
    Throw somebody in jail because they MIGHT carry out an attack, or because they sympathize with a terror group? That's a slippery slope.
    Not to mention that's the kind of stuff that they feed off of, and could even result in more converts to extremism. I'm a believer that every time a drone strike kills a couple of ISIS fighters, it turns on a few cousins and brothers and friends or internet tough guys to extremism. Multiply that every time a drone strike kills a kid or strikes a school/hospital/church...

    That said, I have no idea how to curb it.

    I agree Cuddy. I am one of those people who would take the first step of preventing people from those areas from entering the country. That seemed like a pretty simple solution to reduce the odds a little, but boy did the left raise hell over that one. I don't have the answers either. I'm just making an observation that threat levels, making heart signs toward the sky, and lighting candles, aren't having much effect either.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Most attacks lately have been carried out by "lone wolfs" and they are citizens. If you want to restrict people because of religion, that's a whole new ballgame..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • CuddyCuddy Senior Member Posts: 344 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    Oh good, lets make this about guns..

    Mike


    LOL

    If we can throw health care in there as well, it'll be the trifecta of internet arguments.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    Most attacks lately have been carried out by "lone wolfs" and they are citizens. If you want to restrict people because of religion, that's a whole new ballgame..

    Mike
    Not religion, region.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,221 Senior Member
    tim_s wrote: »
    sooooo this would have stopped this most recent brittish born attacker how?
    Make it retroactive. To the fifth generation.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,571 Senior Member
    tim_s wrote: »
    sooooo this would have stopped this most recent brittish born attacker how?
    No Muslims around to radicalize him.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,754 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    No Muslims around to radicalize him.

    So then it is about religion.

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,571 Senior Member
    Someone shoots up a school. Ban guns.

    An Allahu Snack Bar blows up a bus stop. ..... Can't ban Muslims.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,221 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Someone shoots up a school. Ban guns.

    An Allahu Snack Bar blows up a bus stop. ..... Can't ban Muslims.
    You could ban explosives.

    Oh, wait...
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 2,462 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    define "severe."

    Is it an existential threat? Will it destroy our economy, our culture, our institutions? Of course not.

    How about this: Western countries are resilient societies with well-developed legal, political, economic and cultural norms that will easily thwart the objectives of any attack. The threat level is severe because we choose to see it as severe, and for no other reason. Britain lost 50,000 citizens during the battle of Britain. So. . . you really think this latest go-round is gonna be Britain's undoing?

    I'm not seeking to make light of the casualties from yesterday, as their lives were precious and worthy of protection. Its actually to our credit that a few dead can provoke this response. It means we value the lives of our citizens and don't take their safety lightly. All that means is that these minor attacks generate an outsized response. It doesn't mean the threat is actually severe.

    It's also a severe threat when it's YOUR wife, child, mother, dying. It's one thing when our youth are dying on the front fighting for western values. Its a totally different when they are being mowed down in the street, and our only response is lighting a candle and raising the threat level,

    I'm guessing that they wouldn't have allowed a German living in Britain the same freedoms that the latest attacker had during the battle either.
«134567

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file