Normally we don't jump to conclusions, but ....

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:22 am

The New York Police Department, responding to new information that terrorists may be planning to attack corporations or large public institutions in the city, last night advised building managers and corporate security personnel to step up their procedures to guard against vehicles rigged with explosives and against chemical agents placed in ventilation systems. ... Although the release did not say that new information indicated the city was more vulnerable than others across the United States, a law enforcement official, who insisted on anonymity, said last night that "it would be right to assume that there is particular concern" about large buildings and institutions in Manhattan. (New York Times)***You have to hand it to that law enforcement official, anonymous though he may be: He's dead on.***

Jackie · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:16 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) â€” The federal government warned Sunday of possible terrorist attacks against ``iconic'' financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J., saying a confluence of chilling intelligence in recent days pointed to a car or truck bomb.
In an unprecedented action, the government named these specific buildings in densely populated areas as among the potential targets.....The "chilling intelligence" aside (I suppose that's as opposed to the warmy and fuzzy intelligence), it's NOT unprecedented for the government to cite specific buildings/structures as potential targets in connection with "recent intelligence."

EMorse · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:26 pm

I think the real news here is that anyone believes there's an "iconic" financial institution in Newark.

mdid · **Joined:** Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:01 am **Posts:** 27

From today's NY Times: On Sunday, the secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, said that there was unusually specific intelligence information that Al Qaeda was prepared to attack five buildings in New York City; Washington, D.C., and Newark, N.J. But he added that he did not believe that the attacks were not imminent.So, he believes the attacks are imminent? Is there a good reason to go with the double negative here?

DominEditrix · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:24 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by EMorse:
I think the real news here is that anyone believes there's an "iconic" financial institution in Newark.<hr></blockquote>A bevy of companies moved headquarters to Newark during its latest renaissance. There are a couple of major bank credit card divisions [MBNA for one], Verizon-NJ's HQ and some key stock transfer companies, the disruption of which would have a significant effect on financial interactions. I remember being surprised during my estate planner years at how often the address of some company involved in major assets had the work "Newark" in it. Cheap office space, major airport...D.

Jackie · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:44 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by mdid:
Is there a good reason to go with the double negative here?<hr></blockquote>There's a reason, but not a good one: E-r-r-o-r.

Jackie · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:14 pm

From today's AP story:NEW YORK (AP) â€” Police searched trucks, blocked streets and posted machine-gun toting officers outside financial landmarks Monday, a day after the governmentâ€™s chilling warning that terrorists might target the buildings with bombs.What is it with AP and "chilling"?

Testy Copy Editors

Normally we don't jump to conclusions, but ....

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links