releasing warning info - the gov't that cried wolf.

So, I was reading a different topic this morning and, as so often occurs, it sent my mind off in a number of different directions. The gist of it is that a warning was issued that there may be an attack on the US around the anniversary of 9-11.

A large number of posters replied that it was just fearmongering and that it was a big ruse to get the public on edge. This topic isn't about that.

Also it was mentioned there that there was chatter going back as far as the early 90s and that the US should have known that 9-11 was going to happen. This topic isn't about that, either.

What this topic is about is what level of information and warning you think is appropriate.

Since this enemy tends to use independent cells to carry out it's operations there isn't the kind of troop build up you would normally see in a more conventional theater of operations. Based on the failures of 9-11 the gov't has decided to err on the side of caution in releasing these warnings which, of course, brings to instantly to my mind the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

For those not familiar with this story, it basically revolves around a shephard boy who cries out "wolf!" to bring the villagers running when, in fact there is no wolf. Finally, the lupine rears it's pointy toothed head and the boy cries wolf once more yet no one comes and his sheep (and in some tellings he himself) are all gobbled up.

Should the gov't warn the population even without 100% certainty of an attack?

Has the extra vigilance as a result of the warnings perhaps prevented further attacks?

Should the gov't adopt a wait and see policy and then deal with damage control when it happens?

Please remember that this isn't a topic accusing the gov't of fearmongering with a terrorist boogyman. Please stay on topic as to what criterion you think that the gov't should follow when issuing these warnings.

Personally, I feel that the gov't should issue warnings any time there is any increase in "chatter" or around appropriate holidays. It doesn't fill me with fear, but it reminds me to be extra vigilant. There is the valid concern of it losing it's "punch" in being a warning, but I feel that it is well worth it to have an informed populace.

Please discuss.

Thank you for your time.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the government.

I don't think the govt is crying wolf, unless they raise the color code system and nothing happens, just telling us what is out there doesn't make them into Peter.

I think all threats, should be publicly accessible so that we the people can form our own conclusions about the threats. I rather know and be a little more cautious, than to have not known at all.

I think the whole color coded system is stupid though and totally irrelevant to the general public, if they want to keep that system, it should be an internal system for law enforcement only, not the public.

What do the warnings provide? What do you do now that you've been warned? The warnings are so general in nature, what am I supposed to do? Be extra, extra vigilant? Come on, they are only good for one thing and everyone knows it. I don't think they should give any warning unless very specific in nature, which most likely will never happen. Because if they have the details then I guess it should be prevented, so why bother me at all with the warning?

All I want from my government is the TRUTH. I feel I have been lied to by both sides of the aisle and I am tired of being maunipulated.


If we are not given the truth; how can we make appropriate decisions that effect us and our families.

And Yes "I can handle the truth" wheather it's about threats, ufos, skull and bones or the tooth farie.

How can you not see conspiracys everywhere when there is so much lying by the people that are supposed to reperesent US.

Some here seem to accept everything the authority figures say; NOT ME.