It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


TERRORISM: Less Terror Talk, But Is That A Good Thing?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:47 PM
It has been reported that US Intelligence agencies are picking up less terror talk. But is this a good thing? Intelligence agencies maintain a constant watch on a number of sources, from technologically advanced satellites, to people on the ground doing the dirty work. All are providing constant updates on their nominated target. A sudden reduction on reporting can mean a number of things. While on the surface it can be viewed as a positive sign, the more likely, and worrying conclusion, is that the terrorists are becoming smarter in their methods, or worse, preparing to initiate an operation.
US intelligence monitors are picking up less terror threat talk than a year ago, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said.

A variety of factors could be contributing to the lull, Ridge said, and he warned that terrorists "are strategic actors and long-range planners" who could be merely lying low before striking again.

"There certainly is a diminution, reduction in the amount of intelligence, and the decibel level is lower," Ridge told reporters, comparing information picked up over the past several months with the similar period a year ago.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from such reports. One is that the war on terror is working. The organisations and people that support terrorist infastructure and operations are being shut down, and thus there is less to report. Or, alternatively, and more frighteningly, that Terrorists are becoming smarter about how they operate, where they talk, how they move, and who they talk to. Sudden changes in trends, or "spikes", are always of concern, either in an increase in reporting, or a decrease. We can only hope that it is a positive sign. The alternative, however, must be considered.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Banshee]

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:17 PM
when i read this i thought this sounds good, but then my paranoia hit me. i actually think this is really bad. those who terrorise are extremists and have radical views. as long as the war on terror is still going, i believe it is pushing the terrorists even more towards the end. if we stop the war on terror we lose so there has got to be a balance unless you are successful and that is highly doubtful. i think this news is more like propaganda to appease us that we are winning? terrorism caused confusion. this has caused more.

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:22 PM
No worries folks! Bush won re-election, I knew the terror threats would die down after that. The neo-cons scared their way to victory, no need to further hurt the economy with false terror threats, the war on terror served it's purpose.

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:50 AM
Buy this man a drink. He's hit the nail right on the head.

Theres no benefit in flogging this dead horse any longer, as mentioned above, they've been reelected.

What has me wondering, however, is that slowing the terrorist drum beating has to mean they are not planning on gaining another term based on that issue. Do they have something even more potent to scare the hell out of us with or is the World moving towards a situation where elections dont worry Neo-conservatives any more?

Fighting terrorism is the source of their new found "power", its rather odd that they'd be diminishing this by announcing a drop off in information, regardless of whether terrorist activity was declining or not.

Alternatively they could be setting the stage for further expanding their terrorist platform. Allowing/carrying out another terror attack and claiming the terrorists are advancing their networks and getting harder to track with current means can allow them to push for more power/money.

"We did all we could to prevent this but the terrorists are not hampered by law and monetary constraints. We need total immunity from the law and an unlimited budget to protect freedom loving people across the globe. Trust us, we're your only hope of surving terrorism."

[edit on 7-1-2005 by subz]

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by 27jd
No worries folks! Bush won re-election, I knew the terror threats would die down after that. The neo-cons scared their way to victory, no need to further hurt the economy with false terror threats, the war on terror served it's purpose.

Bingo, bingo, bingo!!!! I'll buy the next round!

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 07:46 PM
Subz-I think I need to buy you a drink too, buddy. Well stated. I like the way you reason things out.

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:20 PM
"it is the deep breath before the plunge" - Ghandalf The White

i believe that another round of terrorist attacks are comming. like the calm before a tornado. could be wrong though. i heard crazier thoughs in this place.

posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 06:29 AM
I seem to recall a report last year that found a significant lull in "chatter" a month or so before a serious attack, particularly 9/11.

I really don't think everyone should be so sure this is a non-event. I do hope it is, but realistically I see possible cause for concern here.

top topics


log in