Yeah, keep crying "wolf!"
O hail thee, fellow tinfoil paranoics fearless citizens of the brave bright world! Yesterday's post about the so-called culture of fear came timely, and Colbert's 'Keep Fear Alive' rally is coming even timelier, as we had yet another stroke added to the big picture of our dark, scary reality. (BOO!) "Do not go out in the street with the US flag on your back" - sounds ridiculous, but seriously, that was the warning which the US national security secretary Michael Chertoff directed at the TV viewers. Surely enough, one couldn't hope for getting a more useful travel tip before setting off to that huge open-air museum and retirement retreat that some call Erap. With a fairly concerned face, the secretary declared a state of "increased alarm" because of possible terrorist attacks throughout the whole European continent. Somehow reminds me of GWB's colofrul 'threat-o-meter'. Remember it?
In result of several joint military operations along the Pakistani-Afghani border, the US intelligence now believes that France, Germany and Britain are all threatened of terror acts in public places. They claim the data suggests (at least the data which was sifted through the PR department and subsequently trickled onto the public) that these attacks are probably planned in the Mumbai style. Remember the bloody hotel siege where several Pakistani terrorists massacred 166 people in the hotel, which they burned down.
So where does this threat really come from? You see, the terror plans are done by top members of Al Qaeda (some have speculated even about Bin Laden himself, in case he or one of his clones were still alive), and their perpetrators are expected to be European citizens of immigrant origin. Unspecified but still pretty clear origin. As evident from the reactions. Some Pakistani diplomats protested to this definition, accusing the US of deliberately 'waging the dog' again in order to distract the attention and to conceal the worrying surge of air attacks across the Afghani border. For instance some European intelligence sources told The Guardian that they were boggled by the sudden warning about a threat that they had been monitoring for a lot of time anyway.
Germany for example considers a main threat the hundreds of German citizens of immigrant origin who are getting sucked up into the alluring philosophy of radical Islamism. Actually the whole process of unraveling this plot started with the arrest of a German citizen who had been trained in a terror camp on the Afghani border in North Waziristan. The German intelligence believes that the same Islamist circle from Hamburg which was responsible for 9-11 is at the core of the present problems. The situation is similar in UK, where many of these bad guys come not just from Pakistan but also Somalia, Sudan, etc.
To France, the main threat is believed to come from North Africa. The large immigrant communities in France are brimming with anger and discontent as became evident in the recent couple of years, and they have a large potential for causing unrest and terror recruitment, mostly linked to Al Qaeda's advent in the whole Maghreb. The Eiffel tower was closed on two occasions for the last month alone, and the arrests in France are mainly of people originating in the Maghreb.
But after all, do all these general warnings achieve their purpose or not? And what's their purpose indeed? Such a threat to hotels and shopping malls probably dwells in the darkest nightmares of anyone who's witnessed the bloody scenes in Mumbai in November 2008. But really, how effective a means are those public recommendations which some countries, including mine, issued to their citizens?
For instance all Bulgarians traveling to other European countries were advised to "be with increased cautiousness when visiting tourism locations, public places, using the public transport or attending crowded events". Other governments made similar appeals. The US government refrained from advising against traveling to Europe because this would've harmed the European economies, but still it requested an increased "alertness". As a consequence, save for the fact that many hotels now have to make extra security efforts, it remains kindof unclear what exactly is someone supposed to do in order not to get shot, torn to pieces or hijacked, neither are we told which places to avoid, and for how long. Just be cautious, that's all. Huh?
I'm thinking this is all a nice trick for transferring all the responsibility to the passengers, tourists, travellers, and citizens in general. Doesn't it sound as if the governments are essentially admitting to their citizens that they can't guarantee their safety so we should all put some extra effort? Or what is it if not resurrecting the old fears of teh-bad-terriztz that seemed to have waned a bit lately? If those alerts mean we shouldn't count on the authorities to do their job, isn't it because it's a job that's impossible to be done, rather than them being incompetent in doing it? I mean the general terrorism threat can only be limited to a certain extent, but never fully removed, right?
But then why the need of all these official and loudly pronounced warnings? First we're told that if we let the terrorists scare us and force us to change our way of life because of their threats, it must mean that they've already won - and now this.
But fine, let's look at it from the other side. Let's say all these alerts are a useful way for the authorities to tell the terrorists "we may not know what exactly you've been up to, but we're keeping an eye on you anyway". Sure, that could slow down a coming attack. But on the other hand all this constant beating the drum may eventually tire people down and bring down their natural defenses, like in the good old parable about the Misleading Shepherd Boy*.
In a 2004 article, Bruce Schneier, one of the most renowned security experts said that these measures don't work. "According to scientists California should expect a massive earth-quake within the next 200 years. That's indeed an enormous disaster, but people cannot stay on high alert for two centuries in a row", he said.
Because these warnings are issued so frequently and because they're so blatantly general, without giving any particular recommendations (apart from "don't wear the US flag on your back", apparently), they don't have any significant effect either on the terrorists or the citizens. Which may or may not make us start coming up with some preposterous conspiracy theories.
* It's a local tale that we learn here from early age. A shepherd boy went out to the pastures with his dad's herd for the first time. But because it was his first time and he was too anxious, the moment he heard some noise in the nearby bushes, he freaked out and ran off in panic back to the village. He found the men in the pub and screamed: "Come! Urgently! There are wolves attacking my sheep!" The men quickly followed him to the pasture, but there they found no wolves, just the herd which was peacefully grazing. On the next day, he went out with the herd again, and again he heard some noise, he got scared and he ran back to the village and called the men again. They took their guns and came to the pasture, but again there were no wolves. On the third day, he went out with the herd again, he thought he heard some noise in the bushes, he ran back and screamed to the men that the wolves were attacking. But then they responded, "Get lost, you boy! There are no wolves there!" So the boy returned to the field, and what did he find? All the sheep had been massacred by the wolves. The men had refused to follow his alert because they got fed up with all his false alarms.
That's what happens when you cry "wolf!" all the time. You eventually miss the real ones.
In result of several joint military operations along the Pakistani-Afghani border, the US intelligence now believes that France, Germany and Britain are all threatened of terror acts in public places. They claim the data suggests (at least the data which was sifted through the PR department and subsequently trickled onto the public) that these attacks are probably planned in the Mumbai style. Remember the bloody hotel siege where several Pakistani terrorists massacred 166 people in the hotel, which they burned down.
So where does this threat really come from? You see, the terror plans are done by top members of Al Qaeda (some have speculated even about Bin Laden himself, in case he or one of his clones were still alive), and their perpetrators are expected to be European citizens of immigrant origin. Unspecified but still pretty clear origin. As evident from the reactions. Some Pakistani diplomats protested to this definition, accusing the US of deliberately 'waging the dog' again in order to distract the attention and to conceal the worrying surge of air attacks across the Afghani border. For instance some European intelligence sources told The Guardian that they were boggled by the sudden warning about a threat that they had been monitoring for a lot of time anyway.
Germany for example considers a main threat the hundreds of German citizens of immigrant origin who are getting sucked up into the alluring philosophy of radical Islamism. Actually the whole process of unraveling this plot started with the arrest of a German citizen who had been trained in a terror camp on the Afghani border in North Waziristan. The German intelligence believes that the same Islamist circle from Hamburg which was responsible for 9-11 is at the core of the present problems. The situation is similar in UK, where many of these bad guys come not just from Pakistan but also Somalia, Sudan, etc.
To France, the main threat is believed to come from North Africa. The large immigrant communities in France are brimming with anger and discontent as became evident in the recent couple of years, and they have a large potential for causing unrest and terror recruitment, mostly linked to Al Qaeda's advent in the whole Maghreb. The Eiffel tower was closed on two occasions for the last month alone, and the arrests in France are mainly of people originating in the Maghreb.
But after all, do all these general warnings achieve their purpose or not? And what's their purpose indeed? Such a threat to hotels and shopping malls probably dwells in the darkest nightmares of anyone who's witnessed the bloody scenes in Mumbai in November 2008. But really, how effective a means are those public recommendations which some countries, including mine, issued to their citizens?
For instance all Bulgarians traveling to other European countries were advised to "be with increased cautiousness when visiting tourism locations, public places, using the public transport or attending crowded events". Other governments made similar appeals. The US government refrained from advising against traveling to Europe because this would've harmed the European economies, but still it requested an increased "alertness". As a consequence, save for the fact that many hotels now have to make extra security efforts, it remains kindof unclear what exactly is someone supposed to do in order not to get shot, torn to pieces or hijacked, neither are we told which places to avoid, and for how long. Just be cautious, that's all. Huh?
I'm thinking this is all a nice trick for transferring all the responsibility to the passengers, tourists, travellers, and citizens in general. Doesn't it sound as if the governments are essentially admitting to their citizens that they can't guarantee their safety so we should all put some extra effort? Or what is it if not resurrecting the old fears of teh-bad-terriztz that seemed to have waned a bit lately? If those alerts mean we shouldn't count on the authorities to do their job, isn't it because it's a job that's impossible to be done, rather than them being incompetent in doing it? I mean the general terrorism threat can only be limited to a certain extent, but never fully removed, right?
But then why the need of all these official and loudly pronounced warnings? First we're told that if we let the terrorists scare us and force us to change our way of life because of their threats, it must mean that they've already won - and now this.
But fine, let's look at it from the other side. Let's say all these alerts are a useful way for the authorities to tell the terrorists "we may not know what exactly you've been up to, but we're keeping an eye on you anyway". Sure, that could slow down a coming attack. But on the other hand all this constant beating the drum may eventually tire people down and bring down their natural defenses, like in the good old parable about the Misleading Shepherd Boy*.
In a 2004 article, Bruce Schneier, one of the most renowned security experts said that these measures don't work. "According to scientists California should expect a massive earth-quake within the next 200 years. That's indeed an enormous disaster, but people cannot stay on high alert for two centuries in a row", he said.
Because these warnings are issued so frequently and because they're so blatantly general, without giving any particular recommendations (apart from "don't wear the US flag on your back", apparently), they don't have any significant effect either on the terrorists or the citizens. Which may or may not make us start coming up with some preposterous conspiracy theories.
* It's a local tale that we learn here from early age. A shepherd boy went out to the pastures with his dad's herd for the first time. But because it was his first time and he was too anxious, the moment he heard some noise in the nearby bushes, he freaked out and ran off in panic back to the village. He found the men in the pub and screamed: "Come! Urgently! There are wolves attacking my sheep!" The men quickly followed him to the pasture, but there they found no wolves, just the herd which was peacefully grazing. On the next day, he went out with the herd again, and again he heard some noise, he got scared and he ran back to the village and called the men again. They took their guns and came to the pasture, but again there were no wolves. On the third day, he went out with the herd again, he thought he heard some noise in the bushes, he ran back and screamed to the men that the wolves were attacking. But then they responded, "Get lost, you boy! There are no wolves there!" So the boy returned to the field, and what did he find? All the sheep had been massacred by the wolves. The men had refused to follow his alert because they got fed up with all his false alarms.
That's what happens when you cry "wolf!" all the time. You eventually miss the real ones.