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.


Regular warnings for terrorist attacks on specific dates and places. On top of a risk meter what

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:28 PM
I think that it is idiot behavior, to warn regular events without them happen.
People won't be alerted after a while anymore.

I wonder about this result is actually of value, as it will sabotage what we would do when warned and attacked ?
What would be a reason to create careless people if an attack does happen ?

Who will benefit from a population that no longer get alerted or even care about warnings.
Who will not benefit from the people be on high alert at an attack and time the time before it happens and after the warning.

My question is to help by share your thoughts and ideas ? I wrote in the italic text just beneath this sentence.

Reasons and arguments please. So there will be answers, about these pretty disturbing possible reasons for the resulting population black out when they get stunned from the lack of trust or fear when warned.


edit on 6/13/2013 by Sinter Klaas because: Making sure my intentions would be clear instead of looking like a nimkinpoop for not making sense.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Sinter, I basically understand what you are saying, but could you please clarify something? Do you mean warnings from official sources and the use of things like "yellow alerts" and similar? In other words, warnings that get "officially" broadcasted via TV stations, etc? Or do you mean the kinds of warnings we sometimes see on sites like ATS, where members say there will be an attack in a certain place on a certain day (and then nothing happens)?

I ask because they are quite different things and the reasons for the first kind are probably very different from the second kind.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Official ones !

It would be weird to suspect a government do stuff that don't make sense if I would meant the warnings of people like us... Cause that would be really paranoid and odd from my part, don't you agree ?

I changed it into what I intended. Too bad that it screwed over my first possible readers, if they all read the same making it no sense either.

I did change you're point though right ?

I'll edit the last alinea cause I meant for that part, to understood as a request. Whaha
edit on 6/13/2013 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/13/2013 by Sinter Klaas because: Add on question

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

It wasn't that you made no sense. I just wanted to be clear on which of the two possibilities you wanted to focus on.

Okay, so the official warnings, raising alert levels and so on. I think it's a dilemma for the authorities. Imagine they get information about some kind of planned attack that seems reliable and they don't raise alert levels or anything. Then if something does happen, people (especially political rivals) start saying, "If you knew, why didn't you warn us?"

And then are govt inquiries and so on to ask certain officials lots of questions.

But if they do raise alert levels and nothing happens, then some people will ask, "Why do you keep raising alert levels and then nothing happens?"

I don't think they do it just to create a "boy who cried wolf!" kind of mentality in the public. There seems little real value in that. But I suspect some of their "alerts" are just tests, to see how the public reacts and also see what people say about the "alert" in places like this one. That would make sense from an intelligence-gathering point of view, and also a crisis-planning perspective.

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by JustMike

I'm sorry to reply after so long, but I got distracted by Turkey and Europe and had to re-evaluate my views on topic.

I agree with what you said actually... I even changed the reasons for creating this thread.

Governments wont make their citizens difficult to work with. When they need to evacuate, or some other problem needs the people to listen and behave. Time isn't friendly for anyone decides to evacuate. The effort and cost makes it most likely a last option. So I changed some views that got stuck without making any sense.
Luckily I got hit by reality that polished my aluminum goggles and it showed the stupidity that will stick to some ideas and get stuck.

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:58 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Yes, governments are much happier when "the people" (citizens) will listen to what they say with the minimum amount of questioning and also do what they are told to do. Providing the majority do this, they rarely have to worry too much about the smaller number who don't. Except, of course, for the most vocal ones. They have ways of dealing with them.

Of course, it's helpful when those in power control most of the media. They don't even need to do this directly. In virtually all countries, there are laws that allow governments (of any kind) to instruct the media that certain topics are not to be broadcast or even discussed -- nearly always "in the interests of national security". These "gag orders" are very common. Some are temporary and relate to specific matters or people/events, others are longer-term -- like not talking about the locations of secret military installations and what they do there.

While sometimes the "national security" argument may be valid (especially in the case of military secrets), more often it's probably the security of themselves (those in power) that they are worried about.

So, in this situation of announcing alerts, either they are genuine and authorities are trying to avoid a public backlash (and questions!
) if something happens, or they are "test runs" to see how well people listen, believe, and react. In either case, those in power observe the results and if the citizens' response is not satisfactory, then they can revise their methods and perhaps find ways to gently persuade more people to do what they want them to do.

This is nothing new. The only difference is that today, instead literally of taking (alleged) dissidents, "troublemakers" or "heretics" out into the public square in a town and punishing them in various very brutal ways, modern technology is employed to achieve what they want, often through virtual methods that mirror the physical ones of the past.

The mainstream media, publishing, the entertainment industry and various online sites have become very useful tools in that respect. Ironically, movies like "Wag the Dog" give us some insights into what has probably been done, and is, very likely, still being done today.

edit on 15/6/13 by JustMike because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in