General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#61 |
|
What made the difference? I wonder if its the fact that a bomb might be powerful enough to affect them personally, while a dying stranger on the street can be more easily ignored...... |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
|
Back to the story...
My impression from this is, given the latest developments is that what we have is a young man who couldn't go through with it. I am considering that the reason no effective timed-detonation device was found in the car is because there wasn't ever supposed to be one. My guess is that in his time in Pakistan the suspect was taught how to be a suicide bomber, and that this was meant to be the original plan, and he simply couldn't go through with it, panicked, lit the car on fire and tried to run away. I see his family (which was moved to Pakistan) as another confounding variable. I think it is possible, given his lack of determination in fulfilling his mission, and apparently readiness to speak with the authorities, that his family may have been held hostage. Altogether, the good news is that this story ended about as well as it could possibly have ended - with no one hurt (not even the perpetrator) and no property damage (other than the car itself). |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
|
Back to the story... all in all, it was just incompetence and luck that it didn't go off. In other posts, gnius, you make the mistake of assuming all terrorists like this are incompetent. Just because there have been failed attacks, doesn't mean they're all stooges. Wait untill a "competent fanatic" comes along and sets off a dirty bomb. Then you'll really see what gov. intrusion and big brother video monitoring is all about. from the start, people have been interpreting this thing through very narrow and subjective lenses. you chose to see things from "an excuse from big brother" perspective. everyone is politicising it. The reality of the matter is pretty simple, and there is a storied history of similar incidents. The fact is, he's just another in a long line of fanatics that want to kill civilians for jihad. Like I said, when competent ones come along they can literally change the world. 20 were able to do so on 9/11. Trust me, yours, mine, and everyone's world will change if someone sets off a crude dirty bomb in Times Square or Washington D.C. and they render the Capital Mall or Times Square uninhabitable for hundreds of years. What kind of security do you think you'll have to endure then? (not to mention the probability of global war) also, terrorism is not just about relative number of deaths compared to other things. ie: you're more likely to get hit by lightning. Yeah, plane travel is unbelievably safe, relatively speaking, but if you have a plane blow up, or a hijacking, like 9/11 or similar, there are global consequences that need to be considered. ie: having all air traffic stop for weeks at a time. So the argument that "terrorism is irrational fear because there is very little chance I could be killed" is extremely short-sighted and misleading. Like I said, 20 stooges changed the world on 9/11. In fact, they probably had more impact on world history than few others. (helped cause 2 wars, ect...) They're up there with Gavrilo Princip who set in motion World War I, by assasinating ArchDuke Ferdinand. |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
|
What??? I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous speculation. If you look at the facts it's pretty clear what happened: They guy was a loser having difficulty in life, so his fanaticism (militant islam) gave him a way out and to "be somebody" (in this worlld and the next) he tried to make a homemade bomb and failed because the detonator device was poor. There are numerous examples in the past few years of people exactly like him trying and failing similar acts. (not to mention numerous that have succeeded) It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I'd like a listing of the "numerous who have succeeded" in the US please. And no, I don't want to "wait until someone sets off a dirty bomb and causes an Orwellian nightmare". Listen to you, it almost sounds like you're looking forward to it! |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
|
So what you're saying is that people shouldn't think rationally, because thinking rationally is not rewarded because people don't think rationally. No (really strange comment)[rolleyes], I'm saying the argument that "there is very little chance of me being killed by terrorism" is shortsighted and misleading because there are so many geo-political consequences of a successful attack. Likewise, there is the distinct possibility of more devastating attacks like dirty bombs or biological/chemical devices.
And I'd like a listing of the "numerous who have succeeded" in the US please. that's really cheap, too. because I didn't specify just the US. I was referring to any number of successful terrorist acts worldwide in the last 10 years. ie: the London Bombings, Russian Subway bombings, Indonesia, ect..ect.. all of which were carried out by like minded jihadists, and this Times Square bomber is out of the same cloth. If you want to deal with just the US, I could cite 9/11 (which was fairly significant), Fort Hood massacre, DC sniper, and several close calls like Seattle millenium bombings, WTC 93, shoe bomber, and crotch bomber (both of which would have had far-reaching consequences had they pulled it off) The main point was, it's not exactly a tough nut to crack. This guy from Pakistan was a jihadist who wished to kill hundreds in Times Square, but his detonator didn't work. It's not exactly difficult detective work; in contrast, your interpretation is politicised and motivated by opposition to big brother, so you downplay it and speculate it could be a conspiracy and now you're saying (with no real factual basis) the guy probably didn't wan't to go through with it ![]() And no, I don't want to "wait until someone sets off a dirty bomb and causes an Orwellian nightmare". Listen to you, it almost sounds like you're looking forward to it! How dare you accuse me of that. What a pitiful ad hominem.[rolleyes] Actually, like you, I'm not a big fan of cameras everywhere or intrusions on liberites. I just don't let my opposition to them cloud my judgement. Like I said, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realize this clown was just another in a long line of like-minded jihadists, and absolutely he wished to kill people in Times Square. |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 |
|
And I'd like a listing of the "numerous who have succeeded" in the US please. o.k 1960s
Enough ? I found a ton more on various sights on attacks on US embassies all over the word. |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
|
Well.... You pretty much made your point!! (Guess nobody had anything better to add) [yes] His "argument" was akin to listing the names of every murder victim in an argument for total surveillance. It's an appeal to emotion, and a strawman, utterly irrelevant to the point, and absolutely useless to argue against. |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
|
Or people had better things to do than argue. If anything, he supported my point about irrational risk assessment. golem directly responded to your question. also, if you want to talk about strawmen and irrelevant to the point argument tactics, see you're above response to my post. anyways, objectivity??? you're the one who interpreted this entire attempt at terrorism through the narrow lens of being opposed to survellence (in just about the most coveted terrorist target on the planet no less....Times Square)[rolleyes] Like I said, if one doesn't have an axe to grind and a narrow lens to interpret, it's patently obvious and basic common sense: the guy was a jihadist who wanted to kill civilians. You're the one who went way out on a limb w/ridiculous speculation motivated by a distaste for survellience. You even went so far to say the guy didn't want to go through with it.[rofl] |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
|
My thoughts on this and the whole terrorism thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ObL...eature=related I am completely for being proactive, I just think it's getting the best of us. I'm not gonna let it take over my life. At least the one I control. |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 |
|
You're the one who went way out on a limb w/ridiculous speculation motivated by a distaste for survellience. You even went so far to say the guy didn't want to go through with it.[rofl] I said he didn't want to go through with it because that was my impression, given the haphazard way this was done, and the panicked escape attempt during which he left behinds mounds of evidence. The guy didn't appear to be stupid. He was a well-educated financial analyst. |
![]() |
![]() |
#76 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#77 |
|
Umm... that speculation had absolutely nothing to do with surveillance. If you find something there about cameras, please show me... cause I certainly didn't write it. you even stated your motivation here: Of course I am downplaying it. What else can I do? I don't want to be afraid, and likewise don't feel like living in a total surveillance state for the sake of a marginal yield in security. That's exactly what I was referring to. It's pretty clear you are interpreting all of this through the lens of opposition to survellience. What myself and others are saying, is: what about when a competent terrorist comes along? I kind of agree with your about Big Brother, but I think you take it waay to far. For example: Surveillance of public spaces by government is not about crime or terrorism prevention - any security expert knows it will do neither. It's about power - power of THEM over US. In the highly technological world, total surveillance = absolute power comments like this, you take it way to far. I honestly don't believe most government officials that want survellence do so as an "Orwellian power grab" most do so with good intent. The thing about survellience and high tech like this, there needs to be a "Bill of Rights" enacted, to put some checks and balances in place. Also, you can "prove" almost anything with ideologically motivated studies and statistics, but it's just basic common sense, absolutely survellence deters crime. One need not look further than your local dept store..For example, It reduces shoplifting. There is no arguing that. Also, there have been plenty of studies in the UK and Europe where neighboorhood camera systems lower the crime rate. |
![]() |
![]() |
#78 |
|
but it's just basic common sense, absolutely survellence deters crime. One need not look further than your local dept store..For example, It reduces shoplifting. There is no arguing that. Also, there have been plenty of studies in the UK and Europe where neighboorhood camera systems lower the crime rate. Please show me how much crime dropped in the UK after the introduction of the CCTV everywhere, normalized to the overall trend of crime reduction. The only time I've ever seen someone quote statistics supporting CCTV usage, they'd say "crime dropped 10% since we put up these cameras"... and everyone applauds. Except it also dropped 10% where there weren't any cameras... |
![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
|
like I said, common sense.... [rolleyes] why would just about every single retail store (large and small) install survellence cameras if it didn't reduce crimes like shoplifting? Why would they spend thousands, millions of dollars on it if it doesn't work? I know......it must be some coordinated effort by the store owners and gov. to have power over the people
![]() my common sense isn't getting in the way of anything. your passion with this issue, however, it's pretty clear it's getting in the way of reality. ie: first speculating that it might be an NYPD conspiracy, and when it was proven to be the work of a jihadist, you take the position that the jihadist didn't really want to kill anyone. uh.......ok,,,,,, then. |
![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
|
like I said, common sense.... [rolleyes] why would just about every single retail store (large and small) install survellence cameras if it didn't reduce crimes like shoplifting? Why would they spend thousands, millions of dollars on it if it doesn't work? I know......it must be some coordinated effort by the store owners and gov. to have power over the people |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 guests) | |
|