08-07-2004, 06:21 AM
"I a lot of people do pay attention, than that might be part of the plan but still has some actual warning in there because the fear bit wouldn't work nearly as well as releasing an actual finding."
Ah, yes, but a warning designed *only* to induce fear when necessary for a political purpose (that's shockingly close to the definition of terrorism...) must be non-specific. Were it to contain actual findings, it might be subject to serious public scrutiny. If it turned out to be false, the president could be hurt politically for having put out spurious information to boost his own ratings.
But if the warning is insubstantial, that risk is minimized. People get scared, but not about any specific problem, which might induce unnecessary and unwanted questions.
"The U.S. should actually have the easiest time with this, because there is only one major are that terrorists come from."
Yeah. Planet earth.
Jester
Ah, yes, but a warning designed *only* to induce fear when necessary for a political purpose (that's shockingly close to the definition of terrorism...) must be non-specific. Were it to contain actual findings, it might be subject to serious public scrutiny. If it turned out to be false, the president could be hurt politically for having put out spurious information to boost his own ratings.
But if the warning is insubstantial, that risk is minimized. People get scared, but not about any specific problem, which might induce unnecessary and unwanted questions.
"The U.S. should actually have the easiest time with this, because there is only one major are that terrorists come from."
Yeah. Planet earth.
Jester