Remember, remember the eleventh of September...

[p_p_man]

now America and Australia are being accused of knowing about the Bali bombings before they happened.

They just didn't tell anyone else...

ppman

 

[Bindii]

And if they did know what exactly would you have them do?

Evacuate Bali on a rumour?

 

[michaelmt1]

And if they did know what exactly would you have them do?

Evacuate Bali on a rumour?

If they alerted every rumor the only safe spot to go on holidays would be New Zealand and Antartica.


Mike

 

[District Line]

If intelligence information did exist, why is appropriate to refer to the intelligence information as a rumor.

 

[p_p_man]

And if they did know what exactly would you have them do?

Evacuate Bali on a rumour?

Apparantly it wasn't a rumour but hard intelligence.

A general non-commitment warning would have been acceptable along the lines of "The authorities have received intelligence reports that the following areas may be the target of terrorist attacks...".

Then it would be up to the people themselves to heed the warning ot not.

But to say nothing...

ppman

 

[SamGribbles]

Is wrong.

But if nothing happend it would have destroyed Bali's finacial life line.

 

[District Line]

People in London used to be warned when it was thought that there was going to be more intense terrorist activity.

At certain times in the past, the IRA used to step up their bombing campaign, for example, at Christmas time when there were larger crowds in the highstreets. The public were warned, so they could be more dilligent about keeping an eye out for suspect packages etc.

If intelligence information about a bombing campaign in Bali did exist, would it not have been appropriate to warn the public so at least people could choose for themselves whether or not to stay away.

 

[Bindii]

I understand where you are coming from with saying that they should have said something, but couldn't that have created mass panic? I imagine that they find evidence everyday of possible terrorist attacks they would have to sort through the rumours to find the 'real threats'.

 

[Don K Dyck]

now America and Australia are being accused of knowing about the Bali bombings before they happened.

They just didn't tell anyone else...

ppman

Hi p p man . . . sadly, it is true . . . and more sadly, an interview on Oz ABC regional radio predicted the bombing on Friday morning . . .

Now the news talks about a group of eight persons, seven "natives" and one European . . . I wonder if the CIA was involved . . . two recent bombings elsewhere in Asia today were NOT put down to terrorists by the police . . . there was some suggesation from one site that their were other "security agencies" that may have been involved . . .

 

[District Line]

Is wrong.

But if nothing happend it would have destroyed Bali's finacial life line.

Yes but Bali's financial life line, as you put it, is now pretty much destroyed. On top of that, what is worse, people have lost their lives.

Of course we can't say that a public warning would have prevented the atrocity but it may have. The Balinese, understanding that there was a real threat to peoples lives and their own livelihood, may have been more alert and watchful about suspect behaviour, perhaps more inclined to report suspicious activity to the authorities and the authorities themselves, more alert to tip offs. Maybe a higher state of alert would have detered the terrorists from carrying out their plans. Along with the Balinese, some holiday makers may have chosen to be more actively vigilant, other may have chosen to stay away.

There are a lot of maybes here but in essence, being warned of a real danger would have allowed people to be better prepared or given them better grounds to make choices. This is cast against possible ill effects to finance. Surely the prospect of saving lives outweighs the prospect of a down turn in the tourist industry.