If you really care 2_of_8, here's the info on it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020312-5.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020312-5.html)
The colors are probably there to emphasize the different levels, which are named. Each level is not actually just a color. Regardless, having an alert level that alters the state of awareness of the authorities is actually a good thing.
But sure, let's all make fun of our country for taking a logical measure (varying states of readiness) to protect us from a threat that's always there. I certainly prefer seeing the extra security today when I use the subway in Boston.
edit: Oh and Mal, that attack was why I made the post. I just assumed everyone would already know about it.
[snapback]51981[/snapback]
YOU LIVE IN BOSTON!!!! GOD, Thats whats wrong with you. <3
I would rather have decending numbers over colors or both. defcon one is a bit more scarry than say.... "magenta". for me at least.
Bryan
Basically at red you may be considered the enemy if your not inside your home. My guess at this level martial law might be enacted in the area and civil rights possibly suspended temporarily... that's if a attack hit a major city. Somewhat understandable to keep the peace but a precarious position nonetheless.
[snapback]51979[/snapback]
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
In my opinion the whole "color alerts" not only let the citizens know that there might be a potential attack and security is "becoming more tight" it also intimidates and may even scare any "terrorist" that might have been planning an attack on the country. Scaring them off thinking that security is so tight, that they would be caught or unable to commence their attack without risk of the plan failing.
This not only buying time for the government to hopefully get a lead and catch this terrorist suspect, but increases the chance of a "delay" in a potential attack on the country. for those who don't understand this simple concept:
Metal Gear Solid. You want to sneak into that room over there but there's two guards, ok simple.
Uh oh, they saw you. Alert goes up to RED and men swarm your area. You hide and wait for YELLOW where theyre all searching, then its GREEN and they all left so security is at a all time low. So then you can go kill those two guards and not worry about 50 million of them swarming you and successfully reach that room
[snapback]52000[/snapback]
crap-ola so all a terrorist has to do is crawl under a desk and we're doomed!!
In my opinion the whole "color alerts" not only let the citizens know that there might be a potential attack and security is "becoming more tight" it also intimidates and may even scare any "terrorist" that might have been planning an attack on the country. Scaring them off thinking that security is so tight, that they would be caught or unable to commence their attack without risk of the plan failing.
This not only buying time for the government to hopefully get a lead and catch this terrorist suspect, but increases the chance of a "delay" in a potential attack on the country. for those who don't understand this simple concept:
Metal Gear Solid. You want to sneak into that room over there but there's two guards, ok simple.
Uh oh, they saw you. Alert goes up to RED and men swarm your area. You hide and wait for YELLOW where theyre all searching, then its GREEN and they all left so security is at a all time low. So then you can go kill those two guards and not worry about 50 million of them swarming you and successfully reach that room
[snapback]52000[/snapback]
crap-ola so all a terrorist has to do is crawl under a desk and we're doomed!!
[snapback]52014[/snapback]
Like I said, it was my opinion, and actually them hiding under a desk could represent them hiding and waiting for the countries terror alert to go down as I stated above. So I highly doubt its "crapola"
Hea I got, lets say I was I governer and lets say i wanted more funding, and lets say I have a train in or around my community... How might i use this to my advantage....
I'll give you a hint
WOLF!!![/font]
Bryan
[snapback]52024[/snapback]
Just in case you didnt know, this wasnt crying wolf. It's called precautionary measures. The US has obviously been a prime target for terrorists. The british were hit yesterday with no warning (MI5 and scotland yard and british naval intelligence had NO indication that anything was gonna happen) for being our allies. So in cities with highly used mass transit systems, it simply makes sense to raise the warning level. Crying wolf would have been to have raised the warning level if there hadnt been a terrorist attack yesterday. And besides, you dont get more funding just from raising the warning level, or crying wolf as you put it. The only thing you get is beefed up security and wary passengers while its up.
Or all these could simply be government acts to usher in eventual matial law etc.
[snapback]52038[/snapback]
And the Illuminati are secretly running the world. Really, it's so silly when people talk about martial law simply because the government is doing what it can to avoid massive civilian casualities.
Bryan, I think that after 9/11 people are always going to feel a little bit afraid when a terrorist attack happens somewhere in the world, especially on public transit. The added security and such from an upgraded alert lessens that unavoidable fear.
Or all these could simply be government acts to usher in eventual matial law etc.
[snapback]52038[/snapback]
And the Illuminati are secretly running the world. Really, it's so silly when people talk about martial law simply because the government is doing what it can to avoid massive civilian casualities.
Bryan, I think that after 9/11 people are always going to feel a little bit afraid when a terrorist attack happens somewhere in the world, especially on public transit. The added security and such from an upgraded alert lessens that unavoidable fear.
[snapback]52055[/snapback]
the goverment will do whatever it is that we think that it will never do.
your right fear is with us all but, fear is a bad thing and i dont thing color coding the problem lessens anything. The worst combo is fear and stupidy and our country is flooded with the later.
Bryan
Whats that you say Lassie? Old Bushie has crashed his bicycle?? HIT THE ORANGE ALERT!! INCOMING CLOUD, GO TO DEFCON ONE!!!
[snapback]52053[/snapback]
Ha Ha. that seems to be the way things work around hear, no? all i think the warning level does is give me one hell of a harder time to go on vacation. period
people go out and buy things labeled to protect them from Terrorism
[snapback]52114[/snapback]
What, like a bottle of Terror-Off body spray? What are you talking about? :p
people go out and buy things labeled to protect them from Terrorism
[snapback]52114[/snapback]
What, like a bottle of Terror-Off body spray? What are you talking about? :p
[snapback]52121[/snapback]
Remember when the government told us to buy duct tape and plastic wrap to seal up our houses? Many people really did that.
I live in a suburb and take the subway into Boston, both for work and school. I don't know what toll thing you're talking about though.. I don't drive in, if that's the kind of toll you mean.
Well, Monkey was talking about "terrorism" being imbedded in our brains by the government, like Trump's "You're fired." I'm not so sure the government did that. For me, at least, it was more the two huge frigging buildings falling down in the middle of New York City after commercial planes flew into them and exploded, killing a ton of innocent people. I guess for our government that kind of incidacted something we should be a little more concerned about. But I agree with Monkey actually.. darn those politicians with their sneaky coinphrases, all in an effort to make people buy duct tape and plastic wrap!!
In fact I bet Osama, along with Tom Ridge and possibly the entire Bush family, are secret partners with the Scotch company.
[snapback]52193[/snapback]
they didnt fall. they were knocked down by evil men with no regard to innocent life.
dont ever forget that ever so important detail.
Hundreds of thousands of people who are infinitely more innocent die every day in Africa, alone. Such situations help one get some perspective on matters; they tend to put 9/11 in its place.
Truth is, I do not value the lives of those three thousand people who died on 9/11 any more than the life of any other human being. Far as I'm concerned (and I am very concerned), If you're going to mourn the loss of life perpetrated by evil men, look to Africa, look to the Ivory Coast, or look to Iraq. America knows nothing about losses the way that such people do. I never understood how folks can lose their grasp on essential humanity in the name of some animal cause. Well **** that - that's just not something I stand for.
So answer me this: why do you, personally, value the lives of those those three thousand American people more highly than any three thousand innocent people killed in Afghanistan? Why is Osama Bin Laden any more evil than the American army? Because he made us bleed first?
Christ it's all so senseless.
[snapback]52197[/snapback]
because those 3k are my countrymen, my brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts... you get the picture. One American is far more important to me than a hundred foreigners.
Osama Bin Laden is not evil. Maybe you don't like him, but to his own people he is a hero in all senses of the word. And I can guarantee that neither of you are ultimately correct in your assertion. Osama Bin Laden, like everything and everyone else in the world, just exists. The mind shades that existence (black, white, gray, etc.).
[snapback]52231[/snapback]
You're right. Since right and wrong is a human concept, the distinction is based on human points of view. So I guess it's more accurate to say that by the standards of any civilized society, Osama and people like him are evil. In the minds of rational, educated humans who are not misled by religion and other bogus teachings, that's clear.
Then again, you do always hear that humans are the only species to murder eachother. So maybe it is fundamental.
Hundreds of thousands of people who are infinitely more innocent die every day in Africa, alone. Such situations help one get some perspective on matters; they tend to put 9/11 in its place.
Truth is, I do not value the lives of those three thousand people who died on 9/11 any more than the life of any other human being. Far as I'm concerned (and I am very concerned), If you're going to mourn the loss of life perpetrated by evil men, look to Africa, look to the Ivory Coast, or look to Iraq. America knows nothing about losses the way that such people do. I never understood how folks can lose their grasp on essential humanity in the name of some animal cause. Well **** that - that's just not something I stand for.
So answer me this: why do you, personally, value the lives of those those three thousand American people more highly than any three thousand innocent people killed in Afghanistan? Why is Osama Bin Laden any more evil than the American army? Because he made us bleed first?
Christ it's all so senseless.
[snapback]52197[/snapback]
because those 3k are my countrymen, my brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts... you get the picture. One American is far more important to me than a hundred foreigners.
[snapback]52211[/snapback]
Why? Family maby, but people of the same nationality as you deserve no respect over people of any other nationality. The American sense of patriotism is so twisted and skewed.
Ziggot, my belief is that the American armed forces should not be in Iraq, facing these difficult moral dilemmas.
Do you think animals marry each other? For animals, reproduction happens like this: Female unconsciously exudes pheremones saying 'Take me oh take me, big boy!,' male wanders by, makes a kid, and gets the hell out of there. There are exceptions to this rule, in which the animals mate for life (the barn owl, some wolves, etc. etc.) but, in general, that's the way it goes. Do you call that love?
Islam dictates that these hypothetical children, killed for that one soldier, go to paradise for sacrificing themselves in the name of Allah. What I'd like for you to admit is that [fundamentalist] Muslims have their own beliefs, and they just might be a little different from what you would consider morally correct. But that doesn't make them wrong. It just makes them different from you, OK?
Anyways, would you like to know what I stand for? I know I flip-flop a lot, right? Just like a liberal, right? I stand for America not being a foreign invader. I think that if you'd like to support the troops, you should work to bring them home.
[snapback]52263[/snapback]
I belive that Americans probably never should have gone into iraq in the first place, but I belive an even larger crime would be to go in, install a power vaccume, and then leave as if it's none of thier buisness. Like it or not you guys have a responsibility to overseeing the creation of the new democracy, and the construction of an iraqie military to defend such an organization. After that it's up to the iraqies what they want to do with thier government.
There is nothing fundamental about wrongness. The 'reasonable standards' that you speak of are societal and human. Just leave nature out of this. Nature does not feel and, to be honest, nature doesn't give a damn whether or not you shoot a man just to watch him die. Nature is ice cool. Nature is calm as a Hindu cow.
Osama Bin Laden is not evil. Maybe you don't like him, but to his own people he is a hero in all senses of the word. And I can guarantee that neither of you are ultimately correct in your assertion. Osama Bin Laden, like everything and everyone else in the world, just exists. The mind shades that existence (black, white, gray, etc.).
Now, obviously I have pretty strong opinions of my own. I think that George is a crook and that most political men aren't any better; the Iraq War does not agree with me; I think Salman Rushdie is the greatest author in the world. I just try my best not to believe that such opinions accurately represent the way that things really are.
[snapback]52231[/snapback]
Damn, I missed this before...
I personally belive there is an ultimate moral standard... Yes I am still forced to agree with dubb, because I really don't belive humans know/understand the moral standard. To me that is the nature of sin, the loss of the knowledge of what is good, we know both good and evil, not definitively one or the other. People have all constructed moral axioms around themselfs however, and I think most of those contain some hint of the original goodness of the first one, but obviously there is so much difference between them all that they all can't be right. I think the safest bet is to keep it relitively simple, and then see anything outside of the simplest of moral conundrums as a shade of gray. For instance, murder is wrong because it is essentially one human being evoking his will against another's will to live, in so essensially claiming that he/she is greater then all other humans, which we can see as a logical phalacy, because every human belives themself as the greatest. Rape falls along the same lines, but rather then the ending of a human entity, it is the damanging of a human entity. Personally I also add selfishness too my list, because it seems to be the root of all pain in the world. Anything else either falls partially into one of those catagoires or does not, and thus is a shade of gray based on how close or far it falls.
Honestly, I don't think Hitler was 'evil'. 'Evil' is just a stupid word to use anywhere. Sure, he was a mean old bastard. Call him unsympathetic. Call him a murderer. Call him stone cold. Call him opinionated. Just forget about the term 'evil' - it's way too biblical.
Second, I never said that I, personally think that everybody is right. I said that everybody thinks they're right from their own side, and therefore there can't really be a true right. My viewpoint is no more worthy than your own. That's pretty tough to disprove.
[snapback]52273[/snapback]
Any belief that can lead to the statement that 'evil' isn't a good word to describe Hitler.. is a pretty stupid belief. :p It doesn't matter how you explain it, it's just plain dumb.
There is nothing fundamental about wrongness. The 'reasonable standards' that you speak of are societal and human. Just leave nature out of this. Nature does not feel and, to be honest, nature doesn't give a damn whether or not you shoot a man just to watch him die. Nature is ice cool. Nature is calm as a Hindu cow.
Osama Bin Laden is not evil. Maybe you don't like him, but to his own people he is a hero in all senses of the word. And I can guarantee that neither of you are ultimately correct in your assertion. Osama Bin Laden, like everything and everyone else in the world, just exists. The mind shades that existence (black, white, gray, etc.).
Now, obviously I have pretty strong opinions of my own. I think that George is a crook and that most political men aren't any better; the Iraq War does not agree with me; I think Salman Rushdie is the greatest author in the world. I just try my best not to believe that such opinions accurately represent the way that things really are.
[snapback]52231[/snapback]
Damn, I missed this before...
I personally belive there is an ultimate moral standard... Yes I am still forced to agree with dubb, because I really don't belive humans know/understand the moral standard. To me that is the nature of sin, the loss of the knowledge of what is good, we know both good and evil, not definitively one or the other. People have all constructed moral axioms around themselfs however, and I think most of those contain some hint of the original goodness of the first one, but obviously there is so much difference between them all that they all can't be right. I think the safest bet is to keep it relitively simple, and then see anything outside of the simplest of moral conundrums as a shade of gray. For instance, murder is wrong because it is essentially one human being evoking his will against another's will to live, in so essensially claiming that he/she is greater then all other humans, which we can see as a logical phalacy, because every human belives themself as the greatest. Rape falls along the same lines, but rather then the ending of a human entity, it is the damanging of a human entity. Personally I also add selfishness too my list, because it seems to be the root of all pain in the world. Anything else either falls partially into one of those catagoires or does not, and thus is a shade of gray based on how close or far it falls.
[snapback]52270[/snapback]
ok how about he is only evil because we won.
Bryan
personaly i think he as brilant and insane...very bad combo....much like Einstine only he has succes on his side and a few less deaths from his work.(not many i think)
[snapback]52284[/snapback]
Bryan, Hitler was not at all insane. "Insane" is all to often improperly used... Hitler was perfectly sane in that everything he did was quite meticulously rationalized and organized. We say he was insane because he simply operated on what we see as a flawed rationale. He was a sociopath. Not crazy.
Swift... simply if the Bible teaches us that all sins are equal, in that they are sins... then how can there be gray area? murder is every bit as bad as petty theft or even lying in the eyes of the only true Judge, God.
humans are the only species to murder eachother
Sadly this is in fact total and utter bs. Moving along...[snapback]52294[/snapback]
By murder I meant killing that is not necessary, or warranted in any way.
humans are the only species to murder eachother
Sadly this is in fact total and utter bs. Moving along...[snapback]52294[/snapback]
By murder I meant killing that is not necessary, or warranted in any way.
[snapback]52301[/snapback]
nah, there has been Gorilla females that has killed gorilla-babies, and then she ate them with her baby.
4 more bombs went off today in London, luckily only 1 person was injured. Bastards...
[snapback]52357[/snapback]
yes and from what i hear the guy injured was a bomber anyway.
gfg terrorists