what exactly is a "credible" threat?

just in time for the 9-11 anniversity! a gen-u-ine threat to the fatherland:

U.S. tracks "credible" threat to NYC, D.C. - CBS News: "(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - Just days before the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. counterterrorism officials were chasing a credible but unconfirmed al Qaeda threat to use a car bomb on bridges or tunnels in New York City or Washington. It was the first "active plot" timed to coincide with the somber commemoration of the terror group's 9/11 attacks a decade ago that killed nearly 3,000 people."

now, what exactly is a "credible" threat to these guys?

the "experts" are always hooked in to the "chatter" on blogs and online forums, jihadist websites and so forth. in fact, they've created an industry devoted to unearthing and hyping terrorist threats.

any dispassionate examination of the history of law enforcement's track record on countering the "terrorist threat" is uninspiring at best. the occasional "terrorist" caught up in LE's dragnet is typically some sad sack type, entrapped by an FBI informant with promises of big $$$. in just about any case you care to mention, no "plots" had been hatched worthy of the name -- just vague expressions of "intent" to do some dastardly act. and don't even get started with the farce that is "material support" for terrorists, where acknowledging hamas or hezbollah gets you hard time in the slammer, while fundraising for the MEK gets you VIP credentials on the DC fundraising circuit.

in short, the industry has to keep stoking the fear level, never letting it drop below critical mass, in order to keep the funds flowing. the whole state-security apparatus has practically become a state unto itself, a parasite that's leeched onto the body of our society to suck deeply on the lifeblood of our republic.

happy 9-11, people! enjoy your slavery.