If security were better trained and might know how to tell a bomb from a generic light-blinking piece of electronic equipment they might not have gotten to the very verge of gunning down an innocent tech chick. I don't understand today's mentality. A girl should be gunned down for standing out, when she's not even in a situation by which any means her eccentricity could be perceived as threatening? Ridiculous, gung-ho bull.
If officers draw their weapons on someone and that person turns out not to have a bomb, then that is a little bad.
If nothing gets done and it is a bomb, that's really really bad.
This stuff about security training is bullshit.
If officers seem to be only capable of identifying bombs that look like they came off the 24 set, that's also really really not great.
Because that means actual real bombs will blow up often.
So maybe people should just be allowed to walk around airports with homemade electronics that might be bombs on their chests.
Hell, why stop there. Let's have them board the planes. In fact, let's have them walk into the oval office.
"Gee John, should we let this guy with the wires sticking out of his jacket in to see the president?"
"Remember Bob, anything could look like a bomb, therefore we should let him in because otherwise we might be too paranoid."
As though being paranoid is somehow the worst thing that could happen.
There're no false dilemmas in this post! Or slippery slopes, either!
I like how posters in this thread have said that a "bomb could look like anything," then use that to justify that "what she had looked like a bomb."
Way to go, retards.
Um... How is that retarded? Just because we have no definite way of visually identifying a bomb, does that mean we should just give up and ignore everything? She was displaying something that is commonly found in bombs (which is obviously not the same as "is only found in bombs" which some people seem to have a hard time understanding), and thus justified a security response. As Oboro said, the exact manner of the response might be a bit overboard, but that is something on which I will refrain from opining.
The logic is retarded.
It looked suspicious, so airport security was 100% in the right to question her. That's about all there is to the story, and where it should have ended. Now she's facing 5 years of prison.
I like how posters in this thread have said that a "bomb could look like anything," then use that to justify that "what she had looked like a bomb."
Way to go, retards.
Um... How is that retarded? Just because we have no definite way of visually identifying a bomb, does that mean we should just give up and ignore everything? She was displaying something that is commonly found in bombs (which is obviously not the same as "is only found in bombs" which some people seem to have a hard time understanding), and thus justified a security response. As Oboro said, the exact manner of the response might be a bit overboard, but that is something on which I will refrain from opining.
The logic is retarded.
It looked suspicious, so airport security was 100% in the right to question her. That's about all there is to the story, and where it should have ended. Now she's facing 5 years of prison.
It's a scare tactic, one that is sure to work! When other, real suicide bombers find out that they can get years in prison for this stuff, why, they'll never volunteer!
If security were better trained and might know how to tell a bomb from a generic light-blinking piece of electronic equipment they might not have gotten to the very verge of gunning down an innocent tech chick. I don't understand today's mentality. A girl should be gunned down for standing out, when she's not even in a situation by which any means her eccentricity could be perceived as threatening? Ridiculous, gung-ho bull.
If officers draw their weapons on someone and that person turns out not to have a bomb, then that is a little bad.
If nothing gets done and it is a bomb, that's really really bad.
This stuff about security training is bullshit.
If officers seem to be only capable of identifying bombs that look like they came off the 24 set, that's also really really not great.
Because that means actual real bombs will blow up often.
So maybe people should just be allowed to walk around airports with homemade electronics that might be bombs on their chests.
Hell, why stop there. Let's have them board the planes. In fact, let's have them walk into the oval office.
"Gee John, should we let this guy with the wires sticking out of his jacket in to see the president?"
"Remember Bob, anything could look like a bomb, therefore we should let him in because otherwise we might be too paranoid."
As though being paranoid is somehow the worst thing that could happen.
I like how posters in this thread have said that a "bomb could look like anything," then use that to justify that "what she had looked like a bomb."
Way to go, retards.
Um... How is that retarded? Just because we have no definite way of visually identifying a bomb, does that mean we should just give up and ignore everything? She was displaying something that is commonly found in bombs (which is obviously not the same as "is only found in bombs" which some people seem to have a hard time understanding), and thus justified a security response. As Oboro said, the exact manner of the response might be a bit overboard, but that is something on which I will refrain from opining.
The logic is retarded.
It looked suspicious, so airport security was 100% in the right to question her. That's about all there is to the story, and where it should have ended. Now she's facing 5 years of prison.
Now I'm confused... Your second sentence is saying you agree with me, but your first sentence is calling my logic retarded...
5 years is retarded for NOT ACTUALLY having a bomb. sure fine her a hundred bucks so she remembers to not be fucking stupid and going to an airport wearing a circuit board which is a widely known pop culture icon for a bomb.
Would we think anything of it now, here, on the intarwebs... no. But if I was working for the TSA, I would have ordered in the security guards for sure.
I have no problem with the girl being stopped. I have no problem with the girl being arrested. I have no problem with the girl being fined.* I have a problem with the girl going to jail for carrying something that looks like a bomb. What kind of stupid shit is that? It's like that scene in Meet The Parents where Ben Stiller is told that he "cannot say 'bomb' on a plane," and he goes and says it multiple times. Did he have a bomb? No. So what's the harm, really? What crime was committed here, by this girl? She was acting like an asshole, sure, but if you jailed all the assholes in the world for assholism, you'd have to throw iron bars around the entire Earth because all of us are assholes at one point or another.
*I honestly think we should institute a federal "stupidity tax" of sorts. It would help clean society up.
I like how posters in this thread have said that a "bomb could look like anything," then use that to justify that "what she had looked like a bomb."
Way to go, retards.
Um... How is that retarded? Just because we have no definite way of visually identifying a bomb, does that mean we should just give up and ignore everything? She was displaying something that is commonly found in bombs (which is obviously not the same as "is only found in bombs" which some people seem to have a hard time understanding), and thus justified a security response. As Oboro said, the exact manner of the response might be a bit overboard, but that is something on which I will refrain from opining.
The logic is retarded.
It looked suspicious, so airport security was 100% in the right to question her. That's about all there is to the story, and where it should have ended. Now she's facing 5 years of prison.
Now I'm confused... Your second sentence is saying you agree with me, but your first sentence is calling my logic retarded...
I'm saying that the logic of "a bomb could look like anything, and what she had looked like a bomb" is totally meaningless because it's a tautology.
My logic goes as follows:
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Truly, Shinto, the only options when a person has an electronic device on their shirt is either arrest and years in prison, death by bullets, or letting the person walk into the oval office without asking any questions. It's unfortunate that nothing else can be done, but that's just the way the world is.
Five years in prison, incidentally, is the perfect and reasonable response to all of this.
how many electrinoc devices with batteries attached sticking out of shirts have you seen at the airport?
At the airport? Never. Otherwise? Over a dozen.
I actually have too. But I'm an EE major. Kids do dumb shit.
I love how nobody considers that she might not have realized it looked like a bomb. Which, you know, it didn't. If only because, as I pointed out, any actual bomb is likely to use PCB instead of solderless breadboard.
The stupidity of the general populace (seriously, this looked like a reject from the 24 set at best) is the only reason I'm down with the kind of police reaction that ensued. Personally I think a less...enthusiastic response (one where she was less likely to end up ventilated) would have been better. But hey, that's splitting hairs.
But charges that carry substantial prison time? What the fuck?
Man, I don't care how unrealistic you think your bomb shirt looks - it's the fucking airport. That's the place they make you take off your fucking shoes because they are so frightened of explosives. You are a fucking idiot if you wear a bomb shirt to the airport. End of story.
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
So maybe she never thought about how "realistic" her "bomb shirt" was. Because it wasn't supposed to be a "bomb shirt."
Truly, Shinto, the only options when a person has an electronic device on their shirt is either arrest and years in prison, death by bullets, or letting the person walk into the oval office without asking any questions. It's unfortunate that nothing else can be done, but that's just the way the world is.
Five years in prison, incidentally, is the perfect and reasonable response to all of this.
I see you haven't bothered to read my posts. Nice talking to you.
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Questioned? Of course. Detained? Sure.
Stormed like the fucking beach at Normandy, then charged with offenses carrying half a decade in prison?
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
Are you arguing about the arrest and prison sentence or the officers responding with drawn weapons.
Because I support one but not the other.
And if you're not sure which, or you didn't know that, then maybe you should read my posts before taking issue with my position.
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
So maybe she never thought about how "realistic" her "bomb shirt" was. Because it wasn't supposed to be a "bomb shirt."
I don't think that it matters what it looked like to her. The only important thing is what it looked like to airport security.
Airport security are not supposed to let people walk about with circuitboards attached to their chests.
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Questioned? Of course. Detained? Sure.
Stormed like the fucking beach at Normandy, then charged with offenses carrying half a decade in prison?
Sounds reasonable.
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
So maybe she never thought about how "realistic" her "bomb shirt" was. Because it wasn't supposed to be a "bomb shirt."
I don't think that it matters what it looked like to her. The only important thing is what it looked like to airport security.
Airport security are not supposed to let people walk about with circuitboards attached to their chests.
I don't think anyone here has a problem with her being pulled aside for questioning by security.
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Questioned? Of course. Detained? Sure.
Stormed like the fucking beach at Normandy, then charged with offenses carrying half a decade in prison?
Sounds reasonable.
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
No, but they had guns, and they were pointing them!
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Questioned? Of course. Detained? Sure.
Stormed like the fucking beach at Normandy, then charged with offenses carrying half a decade in prison?
Sounds reasonable.
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
any paratroopers?
edit: where does it say she could face 5 years? I'm on CNN and it just says the charges not the possible sentences
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
Are you arguing about the arrest and prison sentence or the officers responding with drawn weapons.
Because I support one but not the other.
And if you're not sure which, or you didn't know that, then maybe you should read my posts before taking issue with my position.
I'm arguing with the exact post I quoted.
Man, I don't care how unrealistic you think your bomb shirt looks - it's the fucking airport. That's the place they make you take off your fucking shoes because they are so frightened of explosives. You are a fucking idiot if you wear a bomb shirt to the airport. End of story.
This presumes that she intended, or even realized, that it looked like a bomb. Which is not a valid assumption. I'm not talking about charges or police response, I'm talking about what you said that fails to take into account a point of view that isn't yours.
As for the police response, I think it wasn't outside the realm of reason. I'd prefer a less enthusiastic response, one that carried less risk of her dying, but hey all's well that ends well. And I know that we're in agreement regarding the charges.
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Questioned? Of course. Detained? Sure.
Stormed like the fucking beach at Normandy, then charged with offenses carrying half a decade in prison?
Sounds reasonable.
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
No, but they had guns, and they were pointing them!
Someone might have put an eye out.
Shinto on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
As I pointed out before, Shinto.
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
True. But I've never known "subtlety" to be considered an American virtue.
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
Hyperbole, meet Drez. Drez, hyperbole.
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
Man, I don't care how unrealistic you think your bomb shirt looks - it's the fucking airport. That's the place they make you take off your fucking shoes because they are so frightened of explosives. You are a fucking idiot if you wear a bomb shirt to the airport. End of story.
This presumes that she intended, or even realized, that it looked like a bomb. Which is not a valid assumption. I'm not talking about charges or police response, I'm talking about what you said that fails to take into account a point of view that isn't yours.
As for the police response, I think it wasn't outside the realm of reason. I'd prefer a less enthusiastic response, one that carried less risk of her dying, but hey all's well that ends well. And I know that we're in agreement regarding the charges.
I don't think the post you quoted presumed anything about her intent. It allows for her obliviousness, which I think is what most people in here assumes. The post is perhaps somewhat cavalier in referring to her sweater as a "bomb shirt" but it does not implie that she had intended it to be a "bomb shirt."
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure it's not the most effective way? I haven't attended any FBI seminars recently, what should they have done?
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
Hyperbole, meet Drez. Drez, hyperbole.
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
at least a bunch of SMGs are effective at getting civilians away. I really don't think that there is a 'good' way to stop a suicide bomber. They're already planning to kill people and don't care if they die. I'd think the best you could hope for is to get as many people as far away as possible while doing your best to contain the threat. Which is what they did.
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
Are you arguing about the arrest and prison sentence or the officers responding with drawn weapons.
Because I support one but not the other.
And if you're not sure which, or you didn't know that, then maybe you should read my posts before taking issue with my position.
I'm arguing with the exact post I quoted.
Man, I don't care how unrealistic you think your bomb shirt looks - it's the fucking airport. That's the place they make you take off your fucking shoes because they are so frightened of explosives. You are a fucking idiot if you wear a bomb shirt to the airport. End of story.
This presumes that she intended, or even realized, that it looked like a bomb. Which is not a valid assumption. I'm not talking about charges or police response, I'm talking about what you said that fails to take into account a point of view that isn't yours.
What, you want to argue that she isn't an idiot because from her point of view what she did wasn't idiotic?
Because if that's your position, man do I have a president that you can support.
Man, I don't care how unrealistic you think your bomb shirt looks - it's the fucking airport. That's the place they make you take off your fucking shoes because they are so frightened of explosives. You are a fucking idiot if you wear a bomb shirt to the airport. End of story.
This presumes that she intended, or even realized, that it looked like a bomb. Which is not a valid assumption. I'm not talking about charges or police response, I'm talking about what you said that fails to take into account a point of view that isn't yours.
As for the police response, I think it wasn't outside the realm of reason. I'd prefer a less enthusiastic response, one that carried less risk of her dying, but hey all's well that ends well. And I know that we're in agreement regarding the charges.
I don't think the post you quoted presumed anything about her intent. It allows for her obliviousness, which I think is what most people in here assumes. The post is perhaps somewhat cavalier in referring to her sweater as a "bomb shirt" but it does not implie that she had intended it to be a "bomb shirt."
But how can a shirt be an unrealistic bomb shirt if it's not intended to be a bomb shirt? This is like saying my tennis racket is a pretty unrealistic basketball.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
Totally OP, but what is the best way to stop a suicide bomber in a place like an airport, if not a SMG? Because something like a UMP with .45 auto rounds would be tough to beat, I'd have to imagine.
Unless you could sneak up on them with one of those controlled detonation robots, heh.
Man, I don't care how unrealistic you think your bomb shirt looks - it's the fucking airport. That's the place they make you take off your fucking shoes because they are so frightened of explosives. You are a fucking idiot if you wear a bomb shirt to the airport. End of story.
This presumes that she intended, or even realized, that it looked like a bomb. Which is not a valid assumption. I'm not talking about charges or police response, I'm talking about what you said that fails to take into account a point of view that isn't yours.
As for the police response, I think it wasn't outside the realm of reason. I'd prefer a less enthusiastic response, one that carried less risk of her dying, but hey all's well that ends well. And I know that we're in agreement regarding the charges.
I don't think the post you quoted presumed anything about her intent. It allows for her obliviousness, which I think is what most people in here assumes. The post is perhaps somewhat cavalier in referring to her sweater as a "bomb shirt" but it does not implie that she had intended it to be a "bomb shirt."
But how can a shirt be an unrealistic bomb shirt if it's not intended to be a bomb shirt? This is like saying my tennis racket is a pretty unrealistic basketball.
This is what I was getting at. The way Shinto's post was worded only makes sense if you presume that she intended her shirt to look like a bomb...albeit an unrealistic one.
I'm not arguing she isn't an idiot. Just that I don't like the connotations in Shinto's post. Because it's dumb shit like that that gets people charged with offenses carrying five years in prison (despite the fact that he doesn't agree with those charges).
Totally OP, but what is the best way to stop a suicide bomber in a place like an airport, if not a SMG? Because something like a UMP with .45 auto rounds would be tough to beat, I'd have to imagine.
Considering that if it is a bomb you need to ensure that they're dead before they can trigger it? I'd go sniper. Shot to the head. But then again, that doesn't work out so well for her either. So I guess there's really no "good" way to react to a dumb kid that doesn't realize her shirt looks (to the grossly uninformed) like a bomb.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
Totally OP, but what is the best way to stop a suicide bomber in a place like an airport, if not a SMG?
employ ninjas who can repel down from the roof and ninja choke out people
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
Totally OP, but what is the best way to stop a suicide bomber in a place like an airport, if not a SMG? Because something like a UMP with .45 auto rounds would be tough to beat, I'd have to imagine.
Unless you could sneak up on them with one of those controlled detonation robots, heh.
Maybe have a magician do magic tricks to distract them while security sneaks up behind them with a huge butterfly net?
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
Totally OP, but what is the best way to stop a suicide bomber in a place like an airport, if not a SMG? Because something like a UMP with .45 auto rounds would be tough to beat, I'd have to imagine.
Unless you could sneak up on them with one of those controlled detonation robots, heh.
I'd say anything that has the potential for unfocused spread-fire is a bad weapon choice when targeting someone or something that carries or contains an explosive item.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding MD. When I came in, my impression was that this was an art student making some kind of risque statement who was pissed that people reacted seriously to it. I believe along with that post I stated I was unsure of the details of the case.
I then clicked over to the OP and made my subsequent comments.
Posts
There're no false dilemmas in this post! Or slippery slopes, either!
The logic is retarded.
It looked suspicious, so airport security was 100% in the right to question her. That's about all there is to the story, and where it should have ended. Now she's facing 5 years of prison.
how many electronic devices with batteries attached sticking out of shirts have you seen at the airport?
also, while those bombs are nice and dandy, I'm sure they come in all shapes and sizes.
It's a scare tactic, one that is sure to work! When other, real suicide bombers find out that they can get years in prison for this stuff, why, they'll never volunteer!
Substantive rebuttal.
Now I'm confused... Your second sentence is saying you agree with me, but your first sentence is calling my logic retarded...
At the airport? Never. Otherwise? Over a dozen.
I do not believe your experience to be common Doc.
actually, I'm not sure why we're arguing when we pretty much agree.
:P
Would we think anything of it now, here, on the intarwebs... no. But if I was working for the TSA, I would have ordered in the security guards for sure.
B.net: Kusanku
*I honestly think we should institute a federal "stupidity tax" of sorts. It would help clean society up.
I'm saying that the logic of "a bomb could look like anything, and what she had looked like a bomb" is totally meaningless because it's a tautology.
My logic goes as follows:
What she was wearing was well outside the norm and had electrical components on it that are not commonly found on shirts, so it was reasonable for her to be questioned.
Five years in prison, incidentally, is the perfect and reasonable response to all of this.
I actually have too. But I'm an EE major. Kids do dumb shit.
I love how nobody considers that she might not have realized it looked like a bomb. Which, you know, it didn't. If only because, as I pointed out, any actual bomb is likely to use PCB instead of solderless breadboard.
The stupidity of the general populace (seriously, this looked like a reject from the 24 set at best) is the only reason I'm down with the kind of police reaction that ensued. Personally I think a less...enthusiastic response (one where she was less likely to end up ventilated) would have been better. But hey, that's splitting hairs.
But charges that carry substantial prison time? What the fuck?
This presumes intent. Did she intend the breadboard too look like a bomb? Or did she just intend it to look like, you know, some EE student's breadboard? Just because it happened to look like a bomb to those that know no better doesn't mean this was her intent.
So maybe she never thought about how "realistic" her "bomb shirt" was. Because it wasn't supposed to be a "bomb shirt."
I see you haven't bothered to read my posts. Nice talking to you.
Questioned? Of course. Detained? Sure.
Stormed like the fucking beach at Normandy, then charged with offenses carrying half a decade in prison?
Sounds reasonable.
Are you arguing about the arrest and prison sentence or the officers responding with drawn weapons.
Because I support one but not the other.
And if you're not sure which, or you didn't know that, then maybe you should read my posts before taking issue with my position.
I don't think that it matters what it looked like to her. The only important thing is what it looked like to airport security.
Airport security are not supposed to let people walk about with circuitboards attached to their chests.
I don't think the airport situation involved an amphibious approach, so that analogy is not entirely valid.
I don't think anyone here has a problem with her being pulled aside for questioning by security.
No, but they had guns, and they were pointing them!
any paratroopers?
edit: where does it say she could face 5 years? I'm on CNN and it just says the charges not the possible sentences
I'm arguing with the exact post I quoted.
This presumes that she intended, or even realized, that it looked like a bomb. Which is not a valid assumption. I'm not talking about charges or police response, I'm talking about what you said that fails to take into account a point of view that isn't yours.
As for the police response, I think it wasn't outside the realm of reason. I'd prefer a less enthusiastic response, one that carried less risk of her dying, but hey all's well that ends well. And I know that we're in agreement regarding the charges.
Someone might have put an eye out.
In a hypothetical sense, responding to someone who's suspected of being a suicide bomber with several SMG-armed troopers in a show of force may not be a very sound plan.
True. But I've never known "subtlety" to be considered an American virtue.
Hyperbole, meet Drez. Drez, hyperbole.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.
what is your alternative plan?
I don't think the post you quoted presumed anything about her intent. It allows for her obliviousness, which I think is what most people in here assumes. The post is perhaps somewhat cavalier in referring to her sweater as a "bomb shirt" but it does not implie that she had intended it to be a "bomb shirt."
Oh, we've met. We're bedfellows.
Exactly. Submachine guns aren't the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber, but they are incredibly effective at killing stupid kids who may not realize that the average slack-jawed American thinks a breadboard looks like a bomb.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure it's not the most effective way? I haven't attended any FBI seminars recently, what should they have done?
at least a bunch of SMGs are effective at getting civilians away. I really don't think that there is a 'good' way to stop a suicide bomber. They're already planning to kill people and don't care if they die. I'd think the best you could hope for is to get as many people as far away as possible while doing your best to contain the threat. Which is what they did.
What, you want to argue that she isn't an idiot because from her point of view what she did wasn't idiotic?
Because if that's your position, man do I have a president that you can support.
But how can a shirt be an unrealistic bomb shirt if it's not intended to be a bomb shirt? This is like saying my tennis racket is a pretty unrealistic basketball.
Totally OP, but what is the best way to stop a suicide bomber in a place like an airport, if not a SMG? Because something like a UMP with .45 auto rounds would be tough to beat, I'd have to imagine.
Unless you could sneak up on them with one of those controlled detonation robots, heh.
This is what I was getting at. The way Shinto's post was worded only makes sense if you presume that she intended her shirt to look like a bomb...albeit an unrealistic one.
I'm not arguing she isn't an idiot. Just that I don't like the connotations in Shinto's post. Because it's dumb shit like that that gets people charged with offenses carrying five years in prison (despite the fact that he doesn't agree with those charges).
Considering that if it is a bomb you need to ensure that they're dead before they can trigger it? I'd go sniper. Shot to the head. But then again, that doesn't work out so well for her either. So I guess there's really no "good" way to react to a dumb kid that doesn't realize her shirt looks (to the grossly uninformed) like a bomb.
employ ninjas who can repel down from the roof and ninja choke out people
B.net: Kusanku
Maybe have a magician do magic tricks to distract them while security sneaks up behind them with a huge butterfly net?
I'd say anything that has the potential for unfocused spread-fire is a bad weapon choice when targeting someone or something that carries or contains an explosive item.
I then clicked over to the OP and made my subsequent comments.