New York Terror Warnings Both Correct

It’s October 10, and the terrorist threat to New York City’s subway system hasn’t turned into anything real. The city authorities increased surveillance starting Friday based on information gathered in Iraq; Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was the most “specific” threat ever received. The federal authorities discounted the seriousness of the threat saying that the information came from sources that were “not credible.” Oddly, both were right to act as they did.

Once again, the axiom that one cannot learn English from Americans has proved correct at least insofar as the government at all levels uses the language. The threat was, indeed, “specific” – on or around October 9, sources in Iraq said terrorists would attack the New York City subway system using explosives placed in baby carriages. But that doesn’t mean that the threat is credible; that is, the information might come from a rotten source.

And indeed, it did. An “informant,” who spent quite some time in Afghanistan according to the Associated Press, claimed three men were planning to attack the US in the method described. In the past, this informant has had a mixed record according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. In this instance, he had even passed a polygraph test – “That source was deemed to be, yes, believing in the information that was put forward,” said Commissioner Kelly. Polygraphs are the laughingstock of the scientific world, but even for believers in such hocus pocus, the fact remains that it only confirmed that the source wasn’t lying. It couldn’t show that he was plain wrong.

In the end, New Yorkers and those visiting the city were inconvenienced for a few days. More than a few avoided the subway, while here, one stubbornly made a point of taking extra rides Friday and over the week-end. Meanwhile, the feds were right to let the world know that not every threat is credible and that there will be a lot of false alarms. It will help condition the population to a less panic-stricken response in future, which will be beneficial in the event of a real attack.

A terror attack is what risk managers call a low-frequency, high-severity danger. There hasn’t been any such attack on the American mainland for over four years. That means hurricanes are more likely to cause trouble by a huge margin. And unless a spectacular assault like the destruction of the World Trade Center is repeated, the severity of the damage isn’t too awful – a couple of dozen Americans will die on the roads this Thanksgiving, about half the toll from the London bombings of July 7.

This journal remains convinced that there are no serious Fascislamic operatives in the US. While Al Qaeda and its franchises have had time to infiltrate the country, it remains very hostile territory, entirely unsuited to their purposes. The absence of even a pathetic, fumbling attempt at hurting Americans in America suggests, but cannot prove, that they simply aren’t present.

© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.


Home