Have you seen these men?

[Walsingham]

 

The FBI have asked for anyone having information on these men get in touch. They are concerned about possible attacks on ferries in the Seattle area. I expect the feds want to give them a mug of cocoa and a fatherly chat.

[Tale]

I'll keep my eye out, in Texas, for people in Seattle.

[Xard]

Hmh, so the Party Van is on the roll...

[Walsingham]

I'll keep my eye out, in Texas, for people in Seattle.

 

I've been scanning the avenue outside my flat. It'd be just like those wascawy tewowists to be hiding up a tree.

[Tale]

It'd be the perfect alibi.

[Laozi]

Pete Sampras would never attack a gay guy!!

Edited August 28, 2007 by Laozi

[Colrom]

I am concerned about the FBI failure to identify and capture the anthrax attackers.

 

Maybe the FBI should work at catching criminals/terrorists who have actually committed crimes before going fishing for those they imagine might be thinking about committing crimes.

 

They really should say something about why they are concerned about those two people in particular.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Colrom

[astr0creep]

Wow.

 

Sand's dieting is really paying off!

[Guest The Architect]

What them?

 

They're sitting in my lounge room watching TV, having a few drinks, relaxing and enjoying themselves.

 

Where's the harm in that?

 

The FBI have got the wrong people.

[Tale]

I am concerned about the FBI failure to identify and capture the anthrax attackers.

 

Maybe the FBI should work at catching criminals/terrorists who have actually committed crimes before going fishing for those they imagine might be thinking about committing crimes.

 

They really should say something about why they are concerned about those two people in particular.

1) Ounce of prevention, etc...

2) The US government can't publicly accuse people on mere suspicion. (maybe they can, but it's immensely poor taste) These people either a) are suspected of plotting such attacks or b) suspected to hold information about such potential attacks. Which translates directly into what is being said.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tale

[Guest The Architect]

Just for the record FBI agents, including your "posing as a regular forum member" spy dudes, I was only joking.

[Colrom]

I am concerned about the FBI failure to identify and capture the anthrax attackers.

 

Maybe the FBI should work at catching criminals/terrorists who have actually committed crimes before going fishing for those they imagine might be thinking about committing crimes.

 

They really should say something about why they are concerned about those two people in particular.

1) Ounce of prevention, etc...

2) The US government can't publicly accuse people on mere suspicion. (maybe they can, but it's immensely poor taste) These people either a) are suspected of plotting such attacks or b) suspected to hold information about such potential attacks. Which translates directly into what is being said.

 

Several innocent people are dead because of actions taken based on "an ounce of prevention" license. Others have had their careers or personal lives damaged.

 

The FBI have effectively accused the people in the picture by posting their picture and providing a generalized accusation. But considering the recent record of civil rights abuse by the FBI and other government organs they should provide something more concrete. Comments about actions or even a name would be nice.

 

Unfortunately the FBI and Homeland Security have a very bad record of accuracy with such generalized suspicians.

 

Some officials seek publicity and favor by affecting a pose of savvy vigilence through repeated accusations - politics. They benefit even if the accusations are false.

 

I will say this, Taks; considering your field of study it is good for your career to take the attitude you project!

Edited August 28, 2007 by Colrom

[Xard]

FBI was never same after Mulder left

[taks]

#2 is in the works... mulder and scully may return yet.

 

taks

[Xard]

It's been "in the works" for like, what, five years?

 

Just another DNF, just in different medium :sad:

[Tale]

I am concerned about the FBI failure to identify and capture the anthrax attackers.

 

Maybe the FBI should work at catching criminals/terrorists who have actually committed crimes before going fishing for those they imagine might be thinking about committing crimes.

 

They really should say something about why they are concerned about those two people in particular.

1) Ounce of prevention, etc...

2) The US government can't publicly accuse people on mere suspicion. (maybe they can, but it's immensely poor taste) These people either a) are suspected of plotting such attacks or b) suspected to hold information about such potential attacks. Which translates directly into what is being said.

 

Several innocent people are dead because of actions taken based on "an ounce of prevention" license. Others have had their careers or personal lives damaged.

 

The FBI have effectively accused the people in the picture by posting their picture and providing a generalized accusation. But considering the recent record of civil rights abuse by the FBI and other government organs they should provide something more concrete. Comments about actions or even a name would be nice.

 

Unfortunately the FBI and Homeland Security have a very bad record of accuracy with such generalized suspicians.

 

Some officials seek publicity and favor by affecting a pose of savvy vigilence through repeated accusations - politics. They benefit even if the accusations are false.

 

I will say this, Taks; considering your field of study it is good for your career to take the attitude you project!

 

-Not Taks

Edited August 28, 2007 by Tale

[taks]

YEAH!

 

i will say, however, that i don't disagree with tale's assessment. yes, i realize the <insert gov't agency here> has a bad track record in some regard, but they also have a good track record w.r.t. actually preventing attack since 9/11. most of the information they have is never publicly released, and this goes even for general police activities. how often do we see murder suspects with their pictures posted for all to see? the best way to keep the public safe is to keep them informed, though not necessarily with _all_ the information. if the FBI is posting this picture, the odds are high they have more information than simply "suspicious looking people on a ferry."

 

taks

[Colrom]

I am concerned about the FBI failure to identify and capture the anthrax attackers.

 

Maybe the FBI should work at catching criminals/terrorists who have actually committed crimes before going fishing for those they imagine might be thinking about committing crimes.

 

They really should say something about why they are concerned about those two people in particular.

1) Ounce of prevention, etc...

2) The US government can't publicly accuse people on mere suspicion. (maybe they can, but it's immensely poor taste) These people either a) are suspected of plotting such attacks or b) suspected to hold information about such potential attacks. Which translates directly into what is being said.

 

Several innocent people are dead because of actions taken based on "an ounce of prevention" license. Others have had their careers or personal lives damaged.

 

The FBI have effectively accused the people in the picture by posting their picture and providing a generalized accusation. But considering the recent record of civil rights abuse by the FBI and other government organs they should provide something more concrete. Comments about actions or even a name would be nice.

 

Unfortunately the FBI and Homeland Security have a very bad record of accuracy with such generalized suspicians.

 

Some officials seek publicity and favor by affecting a pose of savvy vigilence through repeated accusations - politics. They benefit even if the accusations are false.

 

I will say this, Taks; considering your field of study it is good for your career to take the attitude you project!

 

-Not Taks

 

Yikes! Taks is quite smart and so are you and your names are vaguely similar.

 

Sorry.

[taks]

oh sure, butter us up...

 

taks

[Colrom]

YEAH!

 

i will say, however, that i don't disagree with tale's assessment. yes, i realize the <insert gov't agency here> has a bad track record in some regard, but they also have a good track record w.r.t. actually preventing attack since 9/11. most of the information they have is never publicly released, and this goes even for general police activities. how often do we see murder suspects with their pictures posted for all to see? the best way to keep the public safe is to keep them informed, though not necessarily with _all_ the information. if the FBI is posting this picture, the odds are high they have more information than simply "suspicious looking people on a ferry."

 

taks

 

Some of their actions which have never been publicly released have caused considerable damage to innocent people which has also not been publicly released.

 

There are about thirty seven zillion possible things to worry about - like ferrys.

 

But there are certain focuses of prevention and preparedness - like hospitals. When they are more serious about the value of people's lives rather than the value of their vote they will spend more money upgrading capabilities atthose focuses. Till then, I think their success is more evidence that folks are mostly good rather than evidence that preparedness is well handled.

[taks]

i don't think we can really determine either way, and if the major information they have regards a ferry, then that's what we're going to hear about. plenty of other venues, such as hospitals, are inherently more safe anyway.

 

remember, anytime there is power given to government agency to do the public will, there will be abuse... it is unavoidable. using that as an excuse to keep them from releasing such images, however, would be a travesty.

 

taks

[Tale]

I have difficulty understanding the claim that the FBI is behaving for votes.

[taks]

certainly mulder wasn't.

 

taks

[Colrom]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

 

Hospitals are a potential target but do have full time security as well.

 

What I was talking about, though, was the failure of the government to spend money increasing the capacity of the hospitals to treat victims of terrorist attacks at other places.

 

As it stands now our hospitals and medical staff are a serious bottleneck in our emergency response capability. They are not even equipped to handle a modestly serious flu outbreak let alone a major man made health crisis. As well, the hospitals in each region pretty much must deal with their own problems except for a few cases. Fixing this requires spending money on something other than guns and bullets - to provide excess medical capacity for the kind of surge in patients that a serious terrorist attack or natural disaster would produce.

 

I guess I believe that we should apply our personal assessment capabilities regarding others capabilities and intentions to our own politicians and officials and draw the appropriate conclusions. In that activity following the money is a useful thing to do.

 

We don't have a just-in-time optimized-for-normal-demand military. We should treat our hospitals and other similar facilities more like we do our military. (We should treat our Army better too - our Navy and Air Force seem to have plenty of excess capability.)

 

No money for excess capacity at hospitals means no intentions to provide for treatment for large numbers of people.

 

But money is spent for war and to get votes.

 

That must be what is really important.

 

Of course there are other areas as well where security or capability is lax for want of money spent.

[Gfted1]

Well, Im going to have to disagree with you Colrom. While having better capabilities is awesome Id rather spend money being proactive (guns and bullets) and prevent a catastrophe then sit back fat, dumb and happy waiting for an attack secure in the knowledge that some random hospital can now accomodate additional bodies.