0
DanJohnson

Five Crayons

Recommended Posts

Shortly after the tragedy of September 11th the newly created Department of "Homeland Security" decided to create a color coded scale to depict the level of terroristic threat for any given day.
The scale was based on five levels of threat and designed to be understood by anyone with a first grade education or better .

1st level - Green - low risk of terrorist attacks
2cnd level - Blue - general risk of terrorist attacks.
3rd level - yellow- significant risk of terrorist attacks
4th level - orange- high risk of terrorist attacks
5th level -Red - severe risk of terrorist attacks


Everyday on the local news the days terror color code was reported as was the air quality and humidity levels.

I'm not sure how many of you made use of that color coded info or how.
Did you decide to wear running shoes instead of high heels to the office on August 10 th 2006 , the one day when the government scare mongers elevated the threat to "Red" ?

The color coded threat alert never dipped down into the green or blue zone even though there has never been another terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11. Why is that ?

Why has the government never categorized the terror threat as "Blue" - General risk of terrorist attack ?

Do you know ?

Do you have an inkling as to the why?

Interesting fact , (or at least a fact that I found recently and thought interesting), when a house is built and a buyer takes a 30 year mortgage , the wages of all the workers who build the house and the fees due to all the suppliers who furnished the materials to build the house are far less than the profit made by the bank who financed the house.

Hmm!

Could it be that those who finance "the war on terr" stand to make more than all the soldiers who fought the war and all the contractors who provide materials and support for the war?

Todays' terr alert level is Dollar Green !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The color coded threat alert never dipped down into the green or blue zone even though there has never been another terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11. Why is that ?




United States United States, July 4 2002: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.

How about Ft. Hood?

How many need to die for it to be a terrorist attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***United States United States, July 4 2002: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.

How about Ft. Hood?

How many need to die for it to be a terrorist attack?



I don't think it's a matter of "how many need to die for it to be a terrorist attack" .

I don't believe the distinction has to do with quantity but rather purpose.

Perhaps first we should agree on a definition of terrorism.

In my mind ( and i'm first to admit it has been compromised by hard drugs and wild times ) terrorism is a tactic by which one attempts to achieve political goals by instilling fear of reprisal into those who may stand in the way of those political goals.

In other words, if an action ( assasination at the El Al ticket counter) isn't accompanied with political demands and threats of more of the same that action isn't terrorism , it's merely a shooting .

What say you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***United States United States, July 4 2002: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.

How about Ft. Hood?

How many need to die for it to be a terrorist attack?



I don't think it's a matter of "how many need to die for it to be a terrorist attack" .

I don't believe the distinction has to do with quantity but rather purpose.

Perhaps first we should agree on a definition of terrorism.

In my mind ( and i'm first to admit it has been compromised by hard drugs and wild times ) terrorism is a tactic by which one attempts to achieve political goals by instilling fear of reprisal into those who may stand in the way of those political goals.

In other words, if an action ( assasination at the El Al ticket counter) isn't accompanied with political demands and threats of more of the same that action isn't terrorism , it's merely a shooting .

What say you?



I've also left many braincells along the way but I think any murder that is done to instill terror in a group of people for political or religious gains is terrorism.

Did Mohamed Atta give any demands or threats to the government before hitting the towers?

BTW I agree that the color coded thing is silly, but that is in hindsight. Hopefully we learn from it and create a better system

I also think the TSA is total overkill and a wasteful arrogant form at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll try here. . .

Quote

Why has the government never categorized the terror threat as "Blue" - General risk of terrorist attack ?



Personally, I think the whole Blue and Green levels are bullshit and never should have been created as we will never achieve this level. The U. S. was always at risk of attacks for the whole of my lifetime. I remember the Eighties as being quite violent worldwide regarding terrorism and a considerable amount of threats to us. The last three decades would have never have seen those two colors. And I believe we will never see those two colors ever in the future. In my opinion, I believe the blue and green were added only for the purpose of providing a structure and scale for the other colors that matter.

Quote

Interesting fact , (or at least a fact that I found recently and thought interesting), when a house is built and a buyer takes a 30 year mortgage , the wages of all the workers who build the house and the fees due to all the suppliers who furnished the materials to build the house are far less than the profit made by the bank who financed the house.



True. Never underestimate the power of compound interest. The same goes for automobiles.

Quote

Could it be that those who finance "the war on terr" stand to make more than all the soldiers who fought the war and all the contractors who provide materials and support for the war?



The largest owners of the US Debt are American citizens followed by China with 8% of debt ownership. Every Service member with a TSP account and many civillians with mutual funds and others are debtees. that wealth made from this is spread out quite a bit.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

Interesting fact , (or at least a fact that I found recently and thought interesting), when a house is built and a buyer takes a 30 year mortgage , the wages of all the workers who build the house and the fees due to all the suppliers who furnished the materials to build the house are far less than the profit made by the bank who financed the house.



True. Never underestimate the power of compound interest. The same goes for automobiles.



Helps to ignore inflation as well. I don't think the claim stands up then, esp if we're talking about today's 4% 30 year loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally, I think the whole Blue and Green levels are bullshit and never should have been created as we will never achieve this level.



Not dissimilar to "three strikes and you're out" laws: using ad slogans targeted to the Lowest Common Denominator, rather than sense and logic, to set public law and policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not dissimilar to "three strikes and you're out" laws:...



That's the second time in recent days you've mentioned this.
I don't mean to hijack the thread; but was this law directly inspired by actual baseball rules?
....as opposed to a lazily adopted phrase from the mere coincidence that the law, as envisioned by it's proponents, just happened to include a 3 convictions system ?
Would the law be any more sensible or more logical if it were called "Proposition 184" or "Penal Code Section " ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why do you limit terrorism to only include political motives? And not religion or ideology?



I would say that "religious terrorism" is still typically motivated by political discontent where religion is simply a scapegoat.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Not dissimilar to "three strikes and you're out" laws:...



That's the second time in recent days you've mentioned this.
I don't mean to hijack the thread; but was this law directly inspired by actual baseball rules?



If you mean the terrorism threat alert levels, no; they were directly inspired by Crayola Crayons.

(The "three strikes and you're out" laws? Yeah - baseball.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why do you limit terrorism to only include political motives? And not religion or ideology?



I would say that "religious terrorism" is still typically motivated by political discontent where religion is simply a scapegoat.



Interesting point. I think you're on the right track about that; but thinking on various historical examples (of religious terrorism) from all over the world in, say, the past 100 years, I'd say the two motivations are inextricably merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I also think the term terrorist, terrorism and terror[insert suffix here] is used too loosely.



I find it difficult to imagine this DHS Official could make the following statement with a straight face

In her end-of-year report (press release) to the media (01/03/2010), Michelle James, Director - Seattle Field Office, DHS/Customs and Border Protection - offered up the following gem:

"CBP also worked against agro-terrorism, intercepting asian gypsy moths..."

(ETA: scan of the press item)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I also think the term terrorist, terrorism and terror[insert suffix here] is used too loosely.



I find it difficult to imagine this DHS Official could make the following statement with a straight face

In her end-of-year report (press release) to the media (01/03/2010), Michelle James, Director - Seattle Field Office, DHS/Customs and Border Protection - offered up the following gem:

"CBP also worked against agro-terrorism, intercepting asian gypsy moths..."

(ETA: scan of the press item)



I hadn't heard of the term agro-terrorism, so I looked it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agro-terrorism

Quote

Agroterrorism, also known as Agriterrorism, is "the malicious use of plant or animal pathogens to cause devastating disease in the agricultural sector. It may also take the form of hoaxes and threats intended to create public fear of such events".[1]

In a letter to Los Angeles newspapers an "ecoterrorist organization" calling itself "the Breeders" claimed to be breeding and releasing its own Mediterranean fruit flies in California.[2] The Medfly attacks more than 250 varieties of fruits, nuts and vegetables. A similar attack with a corn or soybean pest could devastate South Dakota's agriculture industry.[3]



So, FWIW, "agro-terrorism" does seem to mean a deliberate act designed to cause widespread harm, or public fear of harm. Imagine how the Iowa economy or the food industry would suffer if Iowa's corn crop were devastated. Or, imagine how the Wisconsin economy and the dairy industry would suffer, and how much food prices would increase, if everybody feared Wisconsin dairy products and refused to buy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***I've also left many braincells along the way but I think any murder that is done to instill terror in a group of people for political or religious gains is terrorism.

Did Mohamed Atta give any demands or threats to the government before hitting the towers?



No one made any demands or threats which may imlply that it wasn't an act of terrorism but rather a propaganda stunt / inside job designed to cause Americans to support the endless war and willingly forfiet their Rights.
Worked like a charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No one made any demands or threats which may imlply that it wasn't an act of terrorism but rather a propaganda stunt / inside job designed to cause Americans to support the endless war and willingly forfiet their Rights.



Trust me...Americans are much easier than that. They didn't have to kill 3,000 innocent citezens to get our attention...They could've just took out MTV Satelittes!>:(

Btw, do you have a picture of you tin foil hat?

What kind of acid did you take...blotter or liquid?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***Why has the government never categorized the terror threat as "Blue" - General risk of terrorist attack ?

***Personally, I think the whole Blue and Green levels are bullshit and never should have been created as we will never achieve this level. The U. S. was always at risk of attacks for the whole of my lifetime. I remember the Eighties as being quite violent worldwide regarding terrorism and a considerable amount of threats to us.

If " The U. S. was always at risk of attacks for the whole of" your lifetime and no attacks ever came I submit that the terr color should be blue- general risk of terror attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting fact , (or at least a fact that I found recently and thought interesting), when a house is built and a buyer takes a 30 year mortgage , the wages of all the workers who build the house and the fees due to all the suppliers who furnished the materials to build the house are far less than the profit made by the bank who financed the house.

***True. Never underestimate the power of compound interest. The same goes for automobiles.
Quote



If compound interest was on the banks investment I would agree that is a fair deal.
The reality is that the bank didn't put up any cash to make the loan.
They simply created the money out of thin air and in so doing devalued all the money in existence at the point in time the loan was created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***Btw, do you have a picture of you tin foil hat?

What kind of acid did you take...blotter or liquid?



They mocked the master , Jesus the Christ for speaking the truth .
They crucified him for outing the banksters.



Are you equating yourself to Jesus the Christ?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites