On a bit of a tangent, I was wondering why unattended bags are such a huge deal in airports. I mean, it's not like we're talking about on a plane, at which point an airport is no more dangerous a place to have unattended bags sitting around than many other crowded places, such as busier shopping malls. Less so, because in theory all the bags inside an airport (at least the sterile side) have gone through screening. Yet for some reason we absolute flip the fuck out about them in airports.
Is it just one of those irrational fear things?
Must be. If I saw an unattended bag at an airport, I'd be less inclined to think twice about it than at a mall, because everyone at an airport is going to have a freaking bag, and sometimes people forget shit. Not too many people in malls are lugging around suitcases, so if you see one left behind, that's two counts of unusual right there.
I believe the concern isn't that someone brought something in the bag and left it unattended; it is that someone else might put something in the bag while it is unattended so that the owner would carry it onboard unwittingly. It's the same reason they ask you if you were the one who packed your bag and if it has been out of your possesion since.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I believe the thought process goes that if you wanted to blow up a plane (and not be dead afterwards) it'd be great to hand around the airport with a bomb and just pop it in the first unattended bag you see.
Also they unattended bag thing is so that if they find something in your bag you've already admitted to being the one that packed and supervised it so they can blame you for anything found inside it.
Ah. Those make sense. Though again, with the level of screening at airports now I'd say it's still a bit silly...and at least part of it is just the whole "airplane->terrorist" connection people make in their heads.
And really, there are plenty of terrorist attacks that could kill loads upon loads of people more effectively than airplane-related terrorism. I mean, aside from your one-in-a-million attack like leveling the WTC, you can kill as many if not more people by just bombing a train, or a mall, or a sporting event, or any of a dozen other crowded places I can think of.
I think it's just that people in general are afraid of flying, and afraid of terrorism, so combining the two makes for afraid^2.
EDIT: And yeah, the whole "hoax" thing is bothering the shit out of me, too. "Scare" maybe, but not "hoax." Hoax implies intent to make people think that these were bombs, which there clearly was not. It's just one of those words that pisses people off, so they're using it.
I believe the thought process goes that if you wanted to blow up a plane (and not be dead afterwards) it'd be great to hand around the airport with a bomb and just pop it in the first unattended bag you see.
Also they unattended bag thing is so that if they find something in your bag you've already admitted to being the one that packed and supervised it so they can blame you for anything found inside it.
Ah. Those make sense. Though again, with the level of screening at airports now I'd say it's still a bit silly...and at least part of it is just the whole "airplane->terrorist" connection people make in their heads.
And really, there are plenty of terrorist attacks that could kill loads upon loads of people more effectively than airplane-related terrorism. I mean, aside from your one-in-a-million attack like leveling the WTC, you can kill as many if not more people by just bombing a train, or a mall, or a sporting event, or any of a dozen other crowded places I can think of.
I think it's just that people in general are afraid of flying, and afraid of terrorism, so combining the two makes for afraid^2.
I would imagine attacking air travel is much more disruptive than attacking passenger rail, sporting events, or even commercial centers. You also need a much smaller device to take out a plane mid-flight than an equivalent number of people (or cost in damage) on the ground.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
At times like these, I hope the terrorists win. If this is what people do with our freedoms, maybe there is a legitimate reason for hating those freedoms.
Clearly, they already won, on September 11th 2001. Otherwise, something like this absolutely absurd paranoia-turned-misunderstanding would not be headline news.
Dreamerdown on
Not all vampires suck blood.
Not all of them die for love.
one thing that bugs me is apparently the artists were asked by the marketting firm to keep quiet when stuff was going on.
Its probably a legal thing, I can imagine that it would very easy to accidently admit guilt without realising it. If one of those people said 'oops, sorry' then technically they've just said that it is their mistake and this was intended. Turner is probably sticking up for them because they have the resources and the legal teams to challenge the accusations, plus if they admit to doing it they can point to the other nine cities and say that clearly it was not intended as a bomb hoax, if the individual marketing companies admit fault then the intention might have been different at each site. Plus they didn't want to risk someone in one of the smaller companies being a dick or playing along and making things worse.
Its the same with everything, when things start getting serious and you're threatened with legal action, you back off and let the lawyers handle things. Its why its always 'No Comment'
[edit] Or 'Hairstyles of the 70s'
Tastyfish on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
one thing that bugs me is apparently the artists were asked by the marketting firm to keep quiet when stuff was going on.
Its probably a legal thing, I can imagine that it would very easy to accidently admit guilt without realising it. If one of those people said 'oops, sorry' then technically they've just said that it is their mistake and this was intended. Turner is probably sticking up for them because they have the resources and the legal teams to challenge the accusations, plus if they admit to doing it they can point to the other nine cities and say that clearly it was not intended as a bomb hoax, if the individual marketing companies admit fault then the intention might have been different at each site. Plus they didn't want to risk someone in one of the smaller companies being a dick or playing along and making things worse.
Its the same with everything, when things start getting serious and you're threatened with legal action, you back off and let the lawyers handle things. Its why its always 'No Comment'
That's because if you let out the tiniest peep of evidence, the other lawyers will fuck your shit up big time.
Clearly, they already won, on September 11th 2001. Otherwise, something like this absolutely absurd paranoia-turned-misunderstanding would not be headline news.
Exactly. Terrorism at it's best. Had this happened before 9/11 nobody would be fucking shitting themselves right now.
matt7718 on
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
edited February 2007
Signs with this:
Were held by the half dozen protesters at the courthouse.
In Portland, police Sgt. Brian Schmautz said officers had no plans to remove any of the signs, so long as they weren't on municipal property. Nor had officers been dispatched in any kind of bomb scare related to the devices.
"At this point we wouldn't even begin an investigation, because there's no reason to believe a crime has occurred," Schmautz said.
[/quote]
So that's what a sane response looks like.
Spaten Optimator on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
See.. In my mind, this is blowing it out of proportion the -other- way. I mean, seriously.. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. but do we need people PROTESTING the legal process vetting this out?
Also.. I can't wait till our generation is in charge of the courts. Things will be quite interesting, I think.
See.. In my mind, this is blowing it out of proportion the -other- way. I mean, seriously.. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. but do we need people PROTESTING the legal process vetting this out?
Also.. I can't wait till our generation is in charge of the courts. Things will be quite interesting, I think.
I'm not sure it's a protest so much as an acknowledgment of the ridiculous situation.
Entropy... The sad part is, the sane people are telling everyone to -not- live in fear of their lives. It will cause a state of general poor health and anxiety. But it is just human nature to fear the boogeymen. Of course, incidents like this can be spun so many ways -- I fully expect to hear in the next couple of days how all our efforts to combat terrorism are going to waste finding hoaxes, and how they should simultaneously be improved/scaled back/refocused.
Personally, I am here on campus with 20,000 strangers. I am lucky to see faces I recognize. Do I live in fear? Hell no.. in fact, I do things here on campus that I would have been afraid to do back home, like publicly walk around with my iPod visible. Why? Because of the atmosphere...
We need to stop distrusting our neighbors. We need to start seeing the real threats, and responding to them appropriately, instead of jumping at shadows.
You know, when the US goes to war with Iran this year, I bet all the people who called the anti war people crazy will be joining in(or a staged false flag terror attack blamed on Iran will make the anti war people flag waving Bushites again)
The sad thing is? VIRTUALLY ALL of the post 9/11 terror threats and "disrupted plots" have been government orchestrated hoaxes.
Seriously, even that "al Qaeda planned to blow up the Sears tower from Miami cell" crap was FBI orchestrated. MSNBC, Time, CNN, etc has all exposed this FACT. Yet the public is gullible.
Yeah Bush said to be afraid, but to go shopping and to Disneyland right after 9/11. Of course, the government also told the people of new york the air was "Safe to breathe!". Now thousands of police, firefighters, and
citizens of lower manhattan are suffering and dying from the asbestos and God knows what else that was hidden in those towers.
Did you know recently, a law was passed forbidding any American without a passport to be let back into America if they venture into Mexico or Canada? Of course, if youre an illegal alien the welcome mat is wide open.
If 9/11 really happened the way the government said, they would have closed the borders. They would have stood up to the so called Islamic threat by going after the orchestrators of 9/11 in Pakistan, etc.
9/11, the war on terror...it's all been one lie after another.
Yeah, this Aqua Teen Hunger Force thing is funny, but it shows
how the post 9/11 terror hoax climate of fear continues.
3000 New Yorkers and DC'ers died for what? For the middle east to be invaded and for Americans to slowly lose their rights?
We need a real investigation into 9/11 finally, and senate committees to reveal how much of this terror threat stuff has been a wag the dog hoax.
Of course when we have REAL terror like the anthrax attacks, it clearly is coming from criminal elements within the government.
Is anyone else as genuinely pissed as I am that the Boston PD absolutely refuses to admit any fault in this situation?
But hey, "that's not a hair question."
You are not alone. That's really the most outrageous aspect of this whole farce for me. They made a mistake and (possibly due to the genuine bomb hoax) blew this all out of proportion. Now they can't back down in the name of saving face. It's bullshit. The judge and that Portland police sgt. are the only sane people in authority in this country, apparently.
Also, "Nevar 4get" picket signs ftw.
juice for jesus on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Dude. If the judge has any sense of humor, he will realize they were fucking with the media, which is something we should all aspire to do. Would they have PREFERRED a dry "no comment?"
See.. In my mind, this is blowing it out of proportion the -other- way. I mean, seriously.. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. but do we need people PROTESTING the legal process vetting this out?
Also.. I can't wait till our generation is in charge of the courts. Things will be quite interesting, I think.
You're deeply mistaken if you don't think we have these kinds of morons in our generation as well.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited February 2007
Alright, Entropy. I'm saying this outright, and upfront.
I will not talk with someone who says the gov't actively orchistrates activities to put the US citizens into fear. I'm not saying they don't -do- such activities, as this Boston thing illustrates. But pre-meditation is off the table, at least for me.
As for the Passport measures? They've been trying to get that enacted for DECADES. and personally, I'm happy. Why? Because before now, I needed to carry a Birth Certificate with me to go into Canada.. and that's a hassle.
Also, the US won't invade Iran unless Iran actively projects its military power. As of yet, they haven't used WMD's on their own citizens (as Saddam did), or act to invade other countries (as Saddam did). There aren't 17 UN resolutions against them asking them to disarm. No.. we aren't going to act against them. If anyone's going to jump the gun, it's going to be Israel, who are spoiling for a fight.
But as I said. I refuse to talk to someone who thinks the US gov't pre-meditates the murder of its own citizens to keep the rest in fear. Such thinking is ignorance.
Posts
You could do plenty of damage with either.
- John Stuart Mill
Ah. Those make sense. Though again, with the level of screening at airports now I'd say it's still a bit silly...and at least part of it is just the whole "airplane->terrorist" connection people make in their heads.
And really, there are plenty of terrorist attacks that could kill loads upon loads of people more effectively than airplane-related terrorism. I mean, aside from your one-in-a-million attack like leveling the WTC, you can kill as many if not more people by just bombing a train, or a mall, or a sporting event, or any of a dozen other crowded places I can think of.
I think it's just that people in general are afraid of flying, and afraid of terrorism, so combining the two makes for afraid^2.
EDIT: And yeah, the whole "hoax" thing is bothering the shit out of me, too. "Scare" maybe, but not "hoax." Hoax implies intent to make people think that these were bombs, which there clearly was not. It's just one of those words that pisses people off, so they're using it.
so some of it is probably left over from that.
Tonight maybe.
This was still a developing story when they were taping yesterday afternoon.
- John Stuart Mill
Quoted from AOL:
Do you think the marketing stunt went too far?
Yes 65%
No 28%
I don't know 7%
Total Votes: 74,338
---
Why? Glad I don't live in America though.
AniList
An AOL/Time Warner company.
edit: Couldn't they have just fixed that poll?
Clearly, they already won, on September 11th 2001. Otherwise, something like this absolutely absurd paranoia-turned-misunderstanding would not be headline news.
Not all vampires suck blood.
Not all of them die for love.
AHAHA.
"We're taking this very seriously!"
"The police need a haircut."
Its the same with everything, when things start getting serious and you're threatened with legal action, you back off and let the lawyers handle things. Its why its always 'No Comment'
[edit] Or 'Hairstyles of the 70s'
That's because if you let out the tiniest peep of evidence, the other lawyers will fuck your shit up big time.
And that was the most glorious way of saying "no comment" ever in the history of law.
Exactly. Terrorism at it's best. Had this happened before 9/11 nobody would be fucking shitting themselves right now.
Were held by the half dozen protesters at the courthouse.
This is becoming EPIC.
And here I thought today would be boring.
In Portland, police Sgt. Brian Schmautz said officers had no plans to remove any of the signs, so long as they weren't on municipal property. Nor had officers been dispatched in any kind of bomb scare related to the devices.
"At this point we wouldn't even begin an investigation, because there's no reason to believe a crime has occurred," Schmautz said.
[/quote]
So that's what a sane response looks like.
See.. In my mind, this is blowing it out of proportion the -other- way. I mean, seriously.. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. but do we need people PROTESTING the legal process vetting this out?
Also.. I can't wait till our generation is in charge of the courts. Things will be quite interesting, I think.
"That's not a hair question! Anybody else?"
"That's also not a hair question...next question!"
"We feel that our hair is safe for the moment..."
Best courthouse steps press conference ever.
I'm not sure it's a protest so much as an acknowledgment of the ridiculous situation.
They did not discuss the comb over. I consider this a massive failure.
How widespread was the combover in the 70s? Perhaps it wasn't topical.
That video delivers more funny per minute than anything else I've ever seen on Youtube.
But hey, "that's not a hair question."
This transcends politics, in my mind.
Indeed, it's not yet Mike Nifong stupid... but it's getting there.
Also - I support the protestors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2ytr2Oyv4
You know, when the US goes to war with Iran this year, I bet all the people who called the anti war people crazy will be joining in(or a staged false flag terror attack blamed on Iran will make the anti war people flag waving Bushites again)
The sad thing is? VIRTUALLY ALL of the post 9/11 terror threats and "disrupted plots" have been government orchestrated hoaxes.
Seriously, even that "al Qaeda planned to blow up the Sears tower from Miami cell" crap was FBI orchestrated. MSNBC, Time, CNN, etc has all exposed this FACT. Yet the public is gullible.
Yeah Bush said to be afraid, but to go shopping and to Disneyland right after 9/11. Of course, the government also told the people of new york the air was "Safe to breathe!". Now thousands of police, firefighters, and
citizens of lower manhattan are suffering and dying from the asbestos and God knows what else that was hidden in those towers.
Did you know recently, a law was passed forbidding any American without a passport to be let back into America if they venture into Mexico or Canada? Of course, if youre an illegal alien the welcome mat is wide open.
If 9/11 really happened the way the government said, they would have closed the borders. They would have stood up to the so called Islamic threat by going after the orchestrators of 9/11 in Pakistan, etc.
9/11, the war on terror...it's all been one lie after another.
Yeah, this Aqua Teen Hunger Force thing is funny, but it shows
how the post 9/11 terror hoax climate of fear continues.
3000 New Yorkers and DC'ers died for what? For the middle east to be invaded and for Americans to slowly lose their rights?
We need a real investigation into 9/11 finally, and senate committees to reveal how much of this terror threat stuff has been a wag the dog hoax.
Of course when we have REAL terror like the anthrax attacks, it clearly is coming from criminal elements within the government.
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
Also, "Nevar 4get" picket signs ftw.
"This may not play with the judge..."
Dude. If the judge has any sense of humor, he will realize they were fucking with the media, which is something we should all aspire to do. Would they have PREFERRED a dry "no comment?"
O GOD
I LOVE THESE GUYS
I will not talk with someone who says the gov't actively orchistrates activities to put the US citizens into fear. I'm not saying they don't -do- such activities, as this Boston thing illustrates. But pre-meditation is off the table, at least for me.
As for the Passport measures? They've been trying to get that enacted for DECADES. and personally, I'm happy. Why? Because before now, I needed to carry a Birth Certificate with me to go into Canada.. and that's a hassle.
Also, the US won't invade Iran unless Iran actively projects its military power. As of yet, they haven't used WMD's on their own citizens (as Saddam did), or act to invade other countries (as Saddam did). There aren't 17 UN resolutions against them asking them to disarm. No.. we aren't going to act against them. If anyone's going to jump the gun, it's going to be Israel, who are spoiling for a fight.
But as I said. I refuse to talk to someone who thinks the US gov't pre-meditates the murder of its own citizens to keep the rest in fear. Such thinking is ignorance.
EDIT
Oh, I know. but our generation is a lot better at exposing them. =P