After the President addressed Congress last night, while his speech was being re-hashed by the media and players from all sides the word was let out that there are “specific, credible and unconfirmed threats” to targets in America in the 10th anniversary of 9-11.
Have we dumbed-down enough upstanding Americans to buy the conflicting adjectives? Seriously?
Taken from Dictionary(dot)com…..
SPECIFIC [spi-sif-ik] adjective
1. having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite.
2. specified, precise, or particular
3. peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc.
4. of a special or particular kind.
5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named
CREDIBLE [kred-uh-buhl] adjective
1. capable of being believed; believable.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy.
UNCONFIRMED [UN-kuhn-furmd] adjective
1. not made certain as to truth; not made certain as to accuracy, validity, availability, etc.
2. not settled; not ratified.
Does anyone else see how these three words really create an oxymoron that is beyond insulting? While something can be unconfirmed, if it has been found to be confidently precise, how can one claim to have confidence in something that is potentially inaccurate?
Suffice it to say, there is chatter of something happening on 9-11-11. Just what that chatter contains, we do not know. Why we are being put through a spin cycle rather than clearly warned, is yet another quandary.
Popular Questions
What does “specific, credible, and unconfirmed threats” mean in the spin cycle?
A specific threat identifies a target, action, time, or location rather than making a vague claim. A credible threat has supporting indicators, such as a named source, corroborating evidence, or a plausible capability. Unconfirmed means investigators or reliable authorities have not yet verified the report, so it should be treated as an allegation rather than an established fact.
How should people evaluate reports about specific, credible, and unconfirmed threats?
Check whether the report identifies its source, separates observed facts from speculation, and includes confirmation from law enforcement or another accountable authority. Compare the claim with multiple independent reports instead of relying on repeated statements from the same unnamed source. Until verification occurs, avoid sharing precise details that could amplify misinformation or expose people to unnecessary risk.
Why can the spin cycle around unconfirmed threats become misleading?
Repeated coverage can make an unverified allegation appear more certain even when no new evidence has been added. Dramatic headlines, selective quotations, and anonymous claims may blur the difference between a specific warning and a confirmed event. Readers should track what has actually been verified, when it was verified, and which details remain unconfirmed.
What should someone do after seeing a report about a specific, credible, and unconfirmed threat?
Read the full report, note the time and source, and look for updates from official emergency-management or law-enforcement channels. Do not confront a suspected person, investigate independently, or repost sensitive details as fact. If the report contains an immediate, actionable danger, contact emergency services and follow official safety instructions rather than relying on social-media commentary.
Auto Amazon Links: No products found.
