It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Officials: Water in Mass. possibly tainted

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Just thought it should be posted----More lack of Security-----I mean this is Water! We only need it to Live.


story here

Mod Edit: fixed long link messing up page formatting

[edit on 3/28/2006 by Gools]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Personally, I'm not sure why they would not consider this terrorism, insofar as the water supply has been compromised for at least forty-eight hours. Sure, it might just be teenagers out for a night of pranks, but if whatever they put in the water is toxic and even if it's not, it has cost the municipalities both money and inconvenience.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I love how these incidents are automatically ruled unrelated to terrorism, before the information is even in. :shk:

The local authorities have no idea who broke in, what's in the container, whether or not the water supply is contaminated, and yet they're 100% positive it isn't related to terrorism.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I love how these incidents are automatically ruled unrelated to terrorism, before the information is even in.


These days law enforcement, especially low level authorities, pull the 'terrorism' card every chance they get....I think instances like these should be considered as nonterrorist acts until there's sufficient information saying otherwise.

But then again that information will probably stop at 'race'.....pretty sad.

But to say that they're 100% positive it's not related to terrorism is a bit unrealistic, imo.

The label 'terrorist' has lost its meaning.....it's over used, imo.

If it were the teenagers that did this, can they we charged with attempted whatever...manslaughter or something?



[edit on 28/3/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I think that terrorism is defined by the act, not by the perpetrators or their allegiance or ideology, or even their intent. The fact remains regardless of how this turns out that an awful lot of people are going to experience some level of anxiety because they drank a drank a whole bunch of water before the word got out.

Probably, the the authorities mean to say that this is not an act carried out by any known terrorist group, but that doesn't mean that the consequences for the perpetrators should be any different.

[edit on 2006/3/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I think its a Terroristic Act, I mean im sure theres a good amount of people wondering in terror as to what they might of drank an bathe in for the small time the water was on/off before this was found out an after it was done,

An to think all it takes is some bolt cutters, a 5 gallon bucket of Misc. Substance A. , and intent to harm a mass amount of people to go after Our Nations Water,

Man, We need Auqa-Minutemen now.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I agree, the perpetrators or their allegiance should not be a factor in determining if an act was terrorism or not.

But the key word is 'intent'....I always thought that an act of terrorism had to have been commited for religious, ideological or political reasons.

But anyways, that's just a small detail. The point is whoever did this for whatever reason should treated the same as terrosist, imo. People could have died and the outcome could have been alot worse than it is.

[edit on 28/3/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Actually, You know what, This was featured on CNN as BREAKING NEWS an then they flashed to Commercials, anyone else hear about this?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Well, I don't think you can call me a knowitall, because I'm not sure whom this link vindicates, but at least there is a federally accepted definition, even if it is not the only definition.

www.fas.org...



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The alarms cut? panels damaged? 5 gallon container used? No federal agents investigating?

Man if they let one water attack slide..whos to say the next one isnt a real deal attack and not a dry practise run? OR could it be a test to see how US people adapt to the idea of their water being rationed because of poison in the water supply?? either way its a scary thought.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
The local story here is that the bucket belonged to workers, not the kids.

The kids were fooling around and trespassing but terrorists they are not.

I guess if they were, this story would be lots more dramatic!!!



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
do you know what to blame for this?
this stupid "innocent until proven guilty" slacker system in justice.... the smart way to do it is "guilty untill proven innocent" because even if they are innocent, dont let them get away with the act in the process for christs sake. in the months it takes to find evidence you can hold on to whos responsible and when you do have evidence there not on the other side of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join