Forums > Social Discussion > And the terrorists win
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
The NYPD has now begun random bag searches on subway riders.
Yup, folks, in the U.S. you can be randomly stopped and searched.
I sure hope this gets knocked down, because I'd rather die in an explosion than have the fourth amendment trampled.
The NYPD has now begun random bag searches on subway riders.
Yup, folks, in the U.S. you can be randomly stopped and searched.
I sure hope this gets knocked down, because I'd rather die in an explosion than have the fourth amendment trampled.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
How many times in NI did anyone find a bomb in someones rucksack? How many people did they arrest who actually had a bomb on them? I'd say the number is slight.
Well, I've stated reasons why they *don't* work. Can you think of any that prove they do?
The headline of the Sunday Times today was "Third terrorist cell still loose". Now it is suspected that they'll simply go on to target "soft" targets. Places that don't have searches. Or places where it wouldn't work. Like trains.
How many times in NI did anyone find a bomb in someones rucksack? How many people did they arrest who actually had a bomb on them? I'd say the number is slight.
Well, I've stated reasons why they *don't* work. Can you think of any that prove they do?
The headline of the Sunday Times today was "Third terrorist cell still loose". Now it is suspected that they'll simply go on to target "soft" targets. Places that don't have searches. Or places where it wouldn't work. Like trains.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Sorry Firepoise... the randam bag searches in London are exactly that... random.
They are not based on any suspicion that the searched person is carrying a bomb. If they were, the people being searched would be almost exclusively young male and muslim and this would be a form of racial discrimination... As a result the searches have been every seventh or tenth person, regardless of whether that person appears suspicious or not.
To describe searching pensioners and infants at random as a viable defence against suicide bombers seems laughable.
Sorry Firepoise... the randam bag searches in London are exactly that... random.
They are not based on any suspicion that the searched person is carrying a bomb. If they were, the people being searched would be almost exclusively young male and muslim and this would be a form of racial discrimination... As a result the searches have been every seventh or tenth person, regardless of whether that person appears suspicious or not.
To describe searching pensioners and infants at random as a viable defence against suicide bombers seems laughable.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"I'd say the number is slight."
Slight is still more than one. And one less person killed, one less family ripped apart IS worth it.
Incidentally, after 30 years of war, the intelligence services here got quite good at searching (that's why troops are still sent here 'to train').
Random searches (and random road blocks) turned up numerous guns and the occasional bomb during that time - I mean, I'm not in support of these searches for nothing, y'know!!
I've seen, from experience, that they work.
It may not have made the headlines in the UK (lets face it, not many people outside the six counties is that informed of what happened here), but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And as for the headline... as it's already been said a few times... you can't prevent every attack. No one believes that is possible. We're talking about reduction.
"I'd say the number is slight."
Slight is still more than one. And one less person killed, one less family ripped apart IS worth it.
Incidentally, after 30 years of war, the intelligence services here got quite good at searching (that's why troops are still sent here 'to train').
Random searches (and random road blocks) turned up numerous guns and the occasional bomb during that time - I mean, I'm not in support of these searches for nothing, y'know!!
I've seen, from experience, that they work.
It may not have made the headlines in the UK (lets face it, not many people outside the six counties is that informed of what happened here), but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And as for the headline... as it's already been said a few times... you can't prevent every attack. No one believes that is possible. We're talking about reduction.
Getting to the other side 
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
"If they were, the people being searched would be almost exclusively young male and muslim and this would be a form of racial discrimination..."
yes and no. I heard on the news that the police will only be stopping black or asian people at train stations due to the the fact that all of the previous bombers have been black or asian. The Home Office has confirmed this is the case, and I strongly agree with it. It is not racial descrimination if there is reason and fact behind it.
Along the lines of: "We are only stopping and searching asians and blacks as not one of the bombers was white". Makes sence to me
"If they were, the people being searched would be almost exclusively young male and muslim and this would be a form of racial discrimination..."
yes and no. I heard on the news that the police will only be stopping black or asian people at train stations due to the the fact that all of the previous bombers have been black or asian. The Home Office has confirmed this is the case, and I strongly agree with it. It is not racial descrimination if there is reason and fact behind it.
Along the lines of: "We are only stopping and searching asians and blacks as not one of the bombers was white". Makes sence to me
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
the police are allowed to search me if they think i am carrying illegal drugs.
it has happened to me and as much as it annoyed me at the time, i do not agree with the principle.
the police are allowed to stop anyone that they think may be carrying an offensive weapon.
that has happened to me too and i don't disagree with their reasoning or justification in that case either.
if the police want to to stop me because they think i am carrying a device that could cause destruction, death and terror on a mass transit system, then i would let them.
i have yet to see a person object to a bag search on the underground, nor have i heard any claims of the transport police abusing these rights.
but the real reason i came to post is that i do not think that the stop and search laws even begin to compare to the nazi's and their abuse of the ability to suspend civil liberties - our law changes don't go anywhere near as far as that act went and to suggest that bag searches indictate a possible slide towards a dictatorship is pretty ridiculous in my eyes.
and dream - like ucof rightly says, you are mistaken - the london bag searches are not random at all: they are targeted and although flawed are indeed one of the only measures that can be taken to deter attacks on certain high risk/highly populated areas.
in this country, i'm not allowed to buy a handgun under any circumstances.
i don't copnsider that to be a reduction of my civil liberties.
i think the terrorists have far from 'won'.
i still believe that i am free to live as and how i want to an extent that i find acceptable.
i don't believe bag searches are completely ineffective - if they make a marginal difference to the ease with which a terrorist attack can take place, i am happy for them to be put into place in times of high risk.
my movements are caught on cctv on a daily basis - the opportunity for infringement upon my civil liberties has been in place for years but i do not object to them if the reasoning is sound.
the good of the people i share my country with necessarily come above my personal liberties - to assume otherwise would feel selfish to me.
as a complete tangent and aside (as a reult of reading around this subject), how many americans hold the 3rd amendment as dear and defend it as stoically as those that cling to the 4th i wonder...?
cole. x
the police are allowed to search me if they think i am carrying illegal drugs.
it has happened to me and as much as it annoyed me at the time, i do not agree with the principle.
the police are allowed to stop anyone that they think may be carrying an offensive weapon.
that has happened to me too and i don't disagree with their reasoning or justification in that case either.
if the police want to to stop me because they think i am carrying a device that could cause destruction, death and terror on a mass transit system, then i would let them.
i have yet to see a person object to a bag search on the underground, nor have i heard any claims of the transport police abusing these rights.
but the real reason i came to post is that i do not think that the stop and search laws even begin to compare to the nazi's and their abuse of the ability to suspend civil liberties - our law changes don't go anywhere near as far as that act went and to suggest that bag searches indictate a possible slide towards a dictatorship is pretty ridiculous in my eyes.
and dream - like ucof rightly says, you are mistaken - the london bag searches are not random at all: they are targeted and although flawed are indeed one of the only measures that can be taken to deter attacks on certain high risk/highly populated areas.
in this country, i'm not allowed to buy a handgun under any circumstances.
i don't copnsider that to be a reduction of my civil liberties.
i think the terrorists have far from 'won'.
i still believe that i am free to live as and how i want to an extent that i find acceptable.
i don't believe bag searches are completely ineffective - if they make a marginal difference to the ease with which a terrorist attack can take place, i am happy for them to be put into place in times of high risk.
my movements are caught on cctv on a daily basis - the opportunity for infringement upon my civil liberties has been in place for years but i do not object to them if the reasoning is sound.
the good of the people i share my country with necessarily come above my personal liberties - to assume otherwise would feel selfish to me.
as a complete tangent and aside (as a reult of reading around this subject), how many americans hold the 3rd amendment as dear and defend it as stoically as those that cling to the 4th i wonder...?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
If someone wants to dig up the "Is the PATRIOT act good for the US?" thread then they'll see some of the new powers that the President has. Or they can Google it and find them on there.
The ones that stand out to me is that you can be *arrested* for protesting near the President. Also that he can confiscate *any* piece of private property that he wants to.
Britain is only slightly behind because our attack has just happened. I'm waiting for a similar bill to try and make it's way through Parliament. This seems scarily close to the process by which the Nazis managed to get power.
And as soon as you justify searching only a single group of people then you alienate the group. How about police stopping Chavs on the basis that they *must* have shoplifted something today? Or anyone with dreads/hippy clothing being stopped for drug searches on the idea that *of course* they're going to smoke weed?
Now you might catch a couple of people, but at the expense of alienating the entire sub-culture. These people will feel victimised and be unco-operative with the authorities.
Muslims are already being targeted by thugs (see the "Who are the terrorists now?" thread) and also (according to UCOF and Cole) the police. How would you like to be Muslim in this current atmosphere? In the face of this oppression, then there will just be more Muslims growing up disaffected and ostracized and consequently good recruits for terrorist groups.
If someone wants to dig up the "Is the PATRIOT act good for the US?" thread then they'll see some of the new powers that the President has. Or they can Google it and find them on there.
The ones that stand out to me is that you can be *arrested* for protesting near the President. Also that he can confiscate *any* piece of private property that he wants to.
Britain is only slightly behind because our attack has just happened. I'm waiting for a similar bill to try and make it's way through Parliament. This seems scarily close to the process by which the Nazis managed to get power.
And as soon as you justify searching only a single group of people then you alienate the group. How about police stopping Chavs on the basis that they *must* have shoplifted something today? Or anyone with dreads/hippy clothing being stopped for drug searches on the idea that *of course* they're going to smoke weed?
Now you might catch a couple of people, but at the expense of alienating the entire sub-culture. These people will feel victimised and be unco-operative with the authorities.
Muslims are already being targeted by thugs (see the "Who are the terrorists now?" thread) and also (according to UCOF and Cole) the police. How would you like to be Muslim in this current atmosphere? In the face of this oppression, then there will just be more Muslims growing up disaffected and ostracized and consequently good recruits for terrorist groups.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
we are not discussing the patriot act as a whole.
we are discussing stop and search rights (in fact, we seem to be discussing both stop and search in the us and the measures that the police in the uk are allowed to take but they are fairly similar so i won't nitpick for now
).
if the british government tries to push through legislation on the back of the terror attacks, parliament would be in uproar.
and if the current labour government did in fact try to introduce a bill resembling the patriot act (as you seem to think they will), i would protest against it right alongside you.
one of my initial reactions on the 7th was "i guess that means i.d. cards are a definite now then
".
but then i realised westminster is not congress - the i.d. card system would not have had an effect on the difficulty of carrying out the bombings and as such, it is considered a separate issue.
i don't believe the other parties would stand for labour pushing through laws as extreme as those contained within the patriot act - nor any that would not have a direct effect on reducing the threat posed by terrorist organistations or individuals.
another intersting opinion
cole. x
we are not discussing the patriot act as a whole.
we are discussing stop and search rights (in fact, we seem to be discussing both stop and search in the us and the measures that the police in the uk are allowed to take but they are fairly similar so i won't nitpick for now
).if the british government tries to push through legislation on the back of the terror attacks, parliament would be in uproar.
and if the current labour government did in fact try to introduce a bill resembling the patriot act (as you seem to think they will), i would protest against it right alongside you.
one of my initial reactions on the 7th was "i guess that means i.d. cards are a definite now then
".but then i realised westminster is not congress - the i.d. card system would not have had an effect on the difficulty of carrying out the bombings and as such, it is considered a separate issue.
i don't believe the other parties would stand for labour pushing through laws as extreme as those contained within the patriot act - nor any that would not have a direct effect on reducing the threat posed by terrorist organistations or individuals.
another intersting opinion
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Cole
Eloquent as ever
ColeEloquent as ever
Getting to the other side
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Nobody has managed to explain why Sethis and I are incorrect in stating that searches of this sort have no chance of succeeding.
One might say that one could search only Asians and those of Middle-Eastern descent...
Gosh, it would be really easy to find some white-looking terrorists.
Funny, the British government didn't randomly search everyone who looked like an Irishman, now, did they?
Nobody has managed to explain why Sethis and I are incorrect in stating that searches of this sort have no chance of succeeding.
One might say that one could search only Asians and those of Middle-Eastern descent...
Gosh, it would be really easy to find some white-looking terrorists.
Funny, the British government didn't randomly search everyone who looked like an Irishman, now, did they?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
that's because all you and sethis have stated is that in your opinion, bag searches have little or no chance of catching a suicide bomber that plans to blow up a subway train.
you have provided no actual evidence that this is the case - you have both offered conjecture which one can easily provide counter-conjecture for - see dave's examples.
if for example the terrorists have to take just a week longer (and thats a VERY generous estimate of how long these things take to plan i hope you'll notice) to find a white suicide bomber to get past the bag searches, as you suggest they might, then that is a week longer for police to discover them.
that'll do for me thank-you.
as a deterrent alone, i think they are effective.
that is my opinion.
opinion and subjective reasoning is all that you and sethis have offered mike, so i don't see why my opinion should be any less valid.
cole. x
Written by: Doc Lightning
Nobody has managed to explain why Sethis and I are incorrect in stating that searches of this sort have no chance of succeeding.
that's because all you and sethis have stated is that in your opinion, bag searches have little or no chance of catching a suicide bomber that plans to blow up a subway train.
you have provided no actual evidence that this is the case - you have both offered conjecture which one can easily provide counter-conjecture for - see dave's examples.
if for example the terrorists have to take just a week longer (and thats a VERY generous estimate of how long these things take to plan i hope you'll notice) to find a white suicide bomber to get past the bag searches, as you suggest they might, then that is a week longer for police to discover them.
that'll do for me thank-you.
as a deterrent alone, i think they are effective.
that is my opinion.
opinion and subjective reasoning is all that you and sethis have offered mike, so i don't see why my opinion should be any less valid.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
The police will discover them through investigation. Not bag stops at the subway entrance.
The police will discover them through investigation. Not bag stops at the subway entrance.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
yep.
like i just said, with bag searches acting as a deterrent (or at the least another barrier for the terrorists to work around), investigation time may be extended and in turn, increase the chance of prevention of an attack.
i'm glad we finally found some middle ground on this subject
cole. x
yep.
like i just said, with bag searches acting as a deterrent (or at the least another barrier for the terrorists to work around), investigation time may be extended and in turn, increase the chance of prevention of an attack.
i'm glad we finally found some middle ground on this subject
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"Funny, the British government didn't randomly search everyone who looked like an Irishman, now, did they?"
Actually, yes they did (although I think they went for the accent as opposed to everyone with ginger hair).
Have you ever seen In the Name of the Father? (sorry to make such a pop culture reference, but it's probably the best example).
The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six spent decades in British prisons because they were Irish in the wrong place.
And if you have flown to Belfast from any of the UK airports, you get to wait in a special lounge seperate from everyone else. A lounge complete with police desk (although I haven't seen a policeman at those little desks for years). At one stage I remember the ports were the same.
Btw, do you have any idea the amount of abuse people from Northern Ireland suffered (and still suffer) in England for the bombings and killings apparently carried out in our name?
We have an international reputation as terrorists (as evidenced by the very first taxi driver I met coming out of Sydney airport who said: "Oh, you're from Northern Ireland... so was that you lot bombing those primary school kids then?")
However, despite the anger and resentment this causes - most of us, I imagine, would still prefer anything that reduces the chance of another person getting blown to bits.
"Funny, the British government didn't randomly search everyone who looked like an Irishman, now, did they?"
Actually, yes they did (although I think they went for the accent as opposed to everyone with ginger hair).
Have you ever seen In the Name of the Father? (sorry to make such a pop culture reference, but it's probably the best example).
The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six spent decades in British prisons because they were Irish in the wrong place.
And if you have flown to Belfast from any of the UK airports, you get to wait in a special lounge seperate from everyone else. A lounge complete with police desk (although I haven't seen a policeman at those little desks for years). At one stage I remember the ports were the same.
Btw, do you have any idea the amount of abuse people from Northern Ireland suffered (and still suffer) in England for the bombings and killings apparently carried out in our name?
We have an international reputation as terrorists (as evidenced by the very first taxi driver I met coming out of Sydney airport who said: "Oh, you're from Northern Ireland... so was that you lot bombing those primary school kids then?")
However, despite the anger and resentment this causes - most of us, I imagine, would still prefer anything that reduces the chance of another person getting blown to bits.
Getting to the other side
member
74 posts
Location: Kamloops, BC
74 posts
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posted:
Now. . . this may be conjecture, however every example where "Random" bag searches result in a successful stopping of a bombing incident requires something to occur--- that the bomb isn't detonated.
Now, last I remember security check points are generally packed iwth people trying to get by, large concentrations of individuals all around.
Someone explain to me how a terrorist detonating an explosive AT the checkpoint or on the Train is any different? A suicide bomber is not going to care whether or not they die on the train or at a checkpoint. The point is still quite moot if the explosive detonates. And, if they have a deadman switch or anything of the sort such random checks will not STOP a terrorist, they will simply alter the location of the explosion.
People still die, the bomb still goes off, all you've done is change the local.
The only way a random bag search would work is on the assumption that the bomb cannot be detonated anyother way than by a timer. And bluntly put, as shown by suicide bombers in the Russia/Chechyna, Israel, or even Iraq, most suicidie bombers have MANUAL ways to detonate the explosives, allowing them to do it whenever they want.
If you're about to catch them, odds are they will blow themselves up and everyone (and mind you at a Rushhour checkpoint, that's a lot of people) around them too.
Checking bags for explosives on a timer will work, but any explosive with a manual detonator and this whole practice is pointless as it can be set off before they even see inside the bag.
Now. . . this may be conjecture, however every example where "Random" bag searches result in a successful stopping of a bombing incident requires something to occur--- that the bomb isn't detonated.
Now, last I remember security check points are generally packed iwth people trying to get by, large concentrations of individuals all around.
Someone explain to me how a terrorist detonating an explosive AT the checkpoint or on the Train is any different? A suicide bomber is not going to care whether or not they die on the train or at a checkpoint. The point is still quite moot if the explosive detonates. And, if they have a deadman switch or anything of the sort such random checks will not STOP a terrorist, they will simply alter the location of the explosion.
People still die, the bomb still goes off, all you've done is change the local.
The only way a random bag search would work is on the assumption that the bomb cannot be detonated anyother way than by a timer. And bluntly put, as shown by suicide bombers in the Russia/Chechyna, Israel, or even Iraq, most suicidie bombers have MANUAL ways to detonate the explosives, allowing them to do it whenever they want.
If you're about to catch them, odds are they will blow themselves up and everyone (and mind you at a Rushhour checkpoint, that's a lot of people) around them too.
Checking bags for explosives on a timer will work, but any explosive with a manual detonator and this whole practice is pointless as it can be set off before they even see inside the bag.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
That's a good point, one of the more sensible of the anti-search arguments raised so far.
Having said that, there's reasons why terrorists choose certain targets, and though exploding a bomb at a crowded checkpoint is going to kill people, it's likely to be less effective than the more confined space on a bus/train. But, like I say, you make a very good point.
Written by: Phellan
Now, last I remember security check points are generally packed iwth people trying to get by, large concentrations of individuals all around.
Someone explain to me how a terrorist detonating an explosive AT the checkpoint or on the Train is any different? A suicide bomber is not going to care whether or not they die on the train or at a checkpoint. The point is still quite moot if the explosive detonates. And, if they have a deadman switch or anything of the sort such random checks will not STOP a terrorist, they will simply alter the location of the explosion.
That's a good point, one of the more sensible of the anti-search arguments raised so far.
Having said that, there's reasons why terrorists choose certain targets, and though exploding a bomb at a crowded checkpoint is going to kill people, it's likely to be less effective than the more confined space on a bus/train. But, like I say, you make a very good point.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
"The hard fact is that America has decided that it is engaged in a war, while Britain has decided that it is confronted with... a 'criminal conspiracy',"
Please. You can't fight a war against a political movement. How do you fight suicide bombers with an army??? You can't! Using our *police* force, we've managed to round up everyone connected to the July bombings in less than 3 weeks. Show me an army that could do the same.
Cole:
"that is my opinion." Fine. No-one is trying to stop you having an opinion, but I disagree with:
Cole:
"opinion and subjective reasoning is all that you and Sethis have offered."
Not true. I've mentioned numerous practical problems with the searches. And given examples of how easily they can be avoided. Another example is if you just put a bomb on the railway *tracks*. An 8 car train going 120mph is going to make a mess.
A good example: "Someone explain to me how a terrorist detonating an explosive AT the checkpoint."
This especially true if we follow Dave's example: That you shut the doors until the situation is resolved. Modify my previous scenario to read: Terrorist 1 is stopped and searched. He makes a fuss and gates are closed. People build up. Terrorist 2 wanders in and detonates his bomb in the crowd.
Cole:
"like i just said, with bag searches acting as a deterrent"
I've already given reasons why they're *not* a deterrent. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining how they *are*?
Firepoise:
"Btw, do you have any idea the amount of abuse people from Northern Ireland suffered (and still suffer) in England for the bombings and killings apparently carried out in our name?
We have an international reputation as terrorists (as evidenced by the very first taxi driver I met coming out of Sydney airport who said: "Oh, you're from Northern Ireland... so was that you lot bombing those primary school kids then?")"
Thank you for proving my point about the alienation of the community.
Dave:
"one of the more sensible of the anti-search arguments raised so far"
Hang on, can you point out any of my objections that *weren't* sensible? Can you state *which* ones are silly and *why* please?
"The hard fact is that America has decided that it is engaged in a war, while Britain has decided that it is confronted with... a 'criminal conspiracy',"
Please. You can't fight a war against a political movement. How do you fight suicide bombers with an army??? You can't! Using our *police* force, we've managed to round up everyone connected to the July bombings in less than 3 weeks. Show me an army that could do the same.
Cole:
"that is my opinion." Fine. No-one is trying to stop you having an opinion, but I disagree with:
Cole:
"opinion and subjective reasoning is all that you and Sethis have offered."
Not true. I've mentioned numerous practical problems with the searches. And given examples of how easily they can be avoided. Another example is if you just put a bomb on the railway *tracks*. An 8 car train going 120mph is going to make a mess.
A good example: "Someone explain to me how a terrorist detonating an explosive AT the checkpoint."
This especially true if we follow Dave's example: That you shut the doors until the situation is resolved. Modify my previous scenario to read: Terrorist 1 is stopped and searched. He makes a fuss and gates are closed. People build up. Terrorist 2 wanders in and detonates his bomb in the crowd.
Cole:
"like i just said, with bag searches acting as a deterrent"
I've already given reasons why they're *not* a deterrent. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining how they *are*?
Firepoise:
"Btw, do you have any idea the amount of abuse people from Northern Ireland suffered (and still suffer) in England for the bombings and killings apparently carried out in our name?
We have an international reputation as terrorists (as evidenced by the very first taxi driver I met coming out of Sydney airport who said: "Oh, you're from Northern Ireland... so was that you lot bombing those primary school kids then?")"
Thank you for proving my point about the alienation of the community.
Dave:
"one of the more sensible of the anti-search arguments raised so far"
Hang on, can you point out any of my objections that *weren't* sensible? Can you state *which* ones are silly and *why* please?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Cole:
"and if the current labour government did in fact try to introduce a bill resembling the patriot act (as you seem to think they will), i would protest against it right alongside you.
And while we're marching on Westminster, we can debate this in person
Sorry for not using the "Quote" Function, but my computer is protesting if I do that, so I'm just using "" at the moment.
Cole:
"and if the current labour government did in fact try to introduce a bill resembling the patriot act (as you seem to think they will), i would protest against it right alongside you.
And while we're marching on Westminster, we can debate this in person
Sorry for not using the "Quote" Function, but my computer is protesting if I do that, so I'm just using "" at the moment.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
This is becoming another "yes it is---no it isn't" debates.
I'm stepping out.
This is becoming another "yes it is---no it isn't" debates.
I'm stepping out.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Edit: For sethis, cos doc posted too quickly
hey mister, don't quote me out of context
After I made the point about the 'alienation' of our community, I said that in spite of that, I (and most people here) would still support measures which would reduce the chances of someone getting killed.
People get alienated during any form of conflict - because it's in our nature (and easier) to stereotype. Random bag searches or not.
Anyways...
Noone is claiming that random bag searches will be completely effective and stop every bomb. That is clearly impossible.
It seems to me that those opposed to the searches keep throwing up hypothetical situations which will undermine the effectiveness of those searches.
There are thousands of ways a bomber could still cause damage - if he/she is intent on doing so.
That is not the point.
The point is that random bag searches MAY prevent an attack, or reduce it's death toll - and are therefore worthy of being introduced/used.
Those searches are not going to make a possible attack any worse.
I also don't agree with the idea that random searches leads to huge backlogs of people.
That's why they are random - and targetted.
The security forces will have thought of the backlog problem already and will work to ensure people don't get caught up at checkpoints.
You have to credit them with some intelligence - after all, it is their job and they will be basing techniques on lessons learned around the world.
Edit: For sethis, cos doc posted too quickly
hey mister, don't quote me out of context
After I made the point about the 'alienation' of our community, I said that in spite of that, I (and most people here) would still support measures which would reduce the chances of someone getting killed.
People get alienated during any form of conflict - because it's in our nature (and easier) to stereotype. Random bag searches or not.
Anyways...
Noone is claiming that random bag searches will be completely effective and stop every bomb. That is clearly impossible.
It seems to me that those opposed to the searches keep throwing up hypothetical situations which will undermine the effectiveness of those searches.
There are thousands of ways a bomber could still cause damage - if he/she is intent on doing so.
That is not the point.
The point is that random bag searches MAY prevent an attack, or reduce it's death toll - and are therefore worthy of being introduced/used.
Those searches are not going to make a possible attack any worse.
I also don't agree with the idea that random searches leads to huge backlogs of people.
That's why they are random - and targetted.
The security forces will have thought of the backlog problem already and will work to ensure people don't get caught up at checkpoints.
You have to credit them with some intelligence - after all, it is their job and they will be basing techniques on lessons learned around the world.
Getting to the other side
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've spent much of this thread not defending bag searches, but instead pointing out the dubious logical nature of many of the arguments against them.
I'm not going to go digging through the thread to pull out examples, but, as I'm sure you've noticed, on several occasions I've pointed out that many of the arguments against searches (not necessarily yours) were actually merely unsubstantiated opinions, and, that of the ones that actually were genuine reasoned arguments, suffered from the defect of assuming that the searches would be carried out in an unintelligent way.
Phellans post suffered from neither of the above arguments, and struck me as a good valid point.
Written by: Sethis
Dave:
"one of the more sensible of the anti-search arguments raised so far"
Hang on, can you point out any of my objections that *weren't* sensible? Can you state *which* ones are silly and *why* please?
I've spent much of this thread not defending bag searches, but instead pointing out the dubious logical nature of many of the arguments against them.
I'm not going to go digging through the thread to pull out examples, but, as I'm sure you've noticed, on several occasions I've pointed out that many of the arguments against searches (not necessarily yours) were actually merely unsubstantiated opinions, and, that of the ones that actually were genuine reasoned arguments, suffered from the defect of assuming that the searches would be carried out in an unintelligent way.
Phellans post suffered from neither of the above arguments, and struck me as a good valid point.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Firepoise:
"There are thousands of ways a bomber could still cause damage - if he/she is intent on doing so.
That is not the point."
Hang on, isn't that a bit contradictory? I thought the whole point of searches was to try and prevent more attacks?
Firepoise:
"The point is that random bag searches MAY prevent an attack, or reduce it's death toll"
But I've given multiple examples of very simple ways that the terrorists could get round the searches. And (Dave) this is not because the searches are being stupid. I think that the police are doing an excellent job so far (both on the day of the bombings, and in catching the other terrorists) but my point is that no matter *how* intelligently the searches are carried out they are by their nature limited. These limitations mean that the searches are useless.
Dave:
"that of the ones that actually were genuine reasoned arguments, suffered from the defect of assuming that the searches would be carried out in an unintelligent way"
Not true. I've given "reasoned arguments" that indicate searches don't work regardless of the intelligence with which they are handled.
Firepoise:
"There are thousands of ways a bomber could still cause damage - if he/she is intent on doing so.
That is not the point."
Hang on, isn't that a bit contradictory? I thought the whole point of searches was to try and prevent more attacks?
Firepoise:
"The point is that random bag searches MAY prevent an attack, or reduce it's death toll"
But I've given multiple examples of very simple ways that the terrorists could get round the searches. And (Dave) this is not because the searches are being stupid. I think that the police are doing an excellent job so far (both on the day of the bombings, and in catching the other terrorists) but my point is that no matter *how* intelligently the searches are carried out they are by their nature limited. These limitations mean that the searches are useless.
Dave:
"that of the ones that actually were genuine reasoned arguments, suffered from the defect of assuming that the searches would be carried out in an unintelligent way"
Not true. I've given "reasoned arguments" that indicate searches don't work regardless of the intelligence with which they are handled.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i perceive your argument as follows:
no matter how good the searches are and how they are conducted, they are limited and are therefore useless.
if that is not your standpoint, please ignore the rest of this post
i do not agree with your assertion that those limitations render the searches useless.
yes, the bombers can carry out a bombing elsewhere - i agree that there are no workable measures that can guarantee no chance of a random suicide bombing.
but i do not think these are random suicide bombings and i do not think that we should not try to at least deter the would-be bombers.
i think that to carry out a synchronised attack, the bombers have a solid plan that they have built over a period of time and is one that they believe has a certainty of succeeding.
bag searches at stations introduce an element that marginally reduces the certainty with which they see their actions succeeding and thus the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network.
it may well mean that they change their plans and try to bomb somewhere else instead.
but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether.
i do not believe that a bomber would 'work around' the searches - i think they would likely make a new plan, thereby giving the police more time to find them through investigation.
in closing, i agree that bag searches are unlikely to directly catch a bomber with a bomb and prevent an attack.
i also agree that if a bomber is caught in this situation, their most likely course of action is to detonsate then and there.
but i do not think that the searches are useless for these two reasons.
i think as a bomber planning an attack, the tube now has a random element that can affect the certainty with which they see their 'masterplan', and as such, deters them from attempting to carry a bomb in areas where there are random bag searches.
like i say, i have seen nothing but conjecture because none of us are suicide bombers and as such, we cannot know if they are deterred or not.
from a personal standpoint, random bag searches on the underground network have convinced me that it is a bad idea to carry weed around with me - there is an extemely slim chance that i will be searched, but the random element is enough for me to not see the risk worth taking at the moment.
cole. x
i perceive your argument as follows:
no matter how good the searches are and how they are conducted, they are limited and are therefore useless.
if that is not your standpoint, please ignore the rest of this post
i do not agree with your assertion that those limitations render the searches useless.
yes, the bombers can carry out a bombing elsewhere - i agree that there are no workable measures that can guarantee no chance of a random suicide bombing.
but i do not think these are random suicide bombings and i do not think that we should not try to at least deter the would-be bombers.
i think that to carry out a synchronised attack, the bombers have a solid plan that they have built over a period of time and is one that they believe has a certainty of succeeding.
bag searches at stations introduce an element that marginally reduces the certainty with which they see their actions succeeding and thus the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network.
it may well mean that they change their plans and try to bomb somewhere else instead.
but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether.
i do not believe that a bomber would 'work around' the searches - i think they would likely make a new plan, thereby giving the police more time to find them through investigation.
in closing, i agree that bag searches are unlikely to directly catch a bomber with a bomb and prevent an attack.
i also agree that if a bomber is caught in this situation, their most likely course of action is to detonsate then and there.
but i do not think that the searches are useless for these two reasons.
i think as a bomber planning an attack, the tube now has a random element that can affect the certainty with which they see their 'masterplan', and as such, deters them from attempting to carry a bomb in areas where there are random bag searches.
like i say, i have seen nothing but conjecture because none of us are suicide bombers and as such, we cannot know if they are deterred or not.
from a personal standpoint, random bag searches on the underground network have convinced me that it is a bad idea to carry weed around with me - there is an extemely slim chance that i will be searched, but the random element is enough for me to not see the risk worth taking at the moment.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well done Cole, you've managed to sum up my viewpoint quite neatly.
Cole:
"i think that to carry out a synchronised attack, the bombers have a solid plan that they have built over a period of time and is one that they believe has a certainty of succeeding.
bag searches at stations introduce an element that marginally reduces the certainty with which they see their actions succeeding and thus the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network.
it may well mean that they change their plans and try to bomb somewhere else instead."
OK, I agree with your reasoning here. But I think the bombers will re-evaluate their plans not because of the searches, but because 4 of their bombs failed to go off altogether. This, I think, more than the searches, will cause them to re-plan.
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
But if they give up on bombing, what else will they try? Automatic weapons? Hostage taking? Hi-jacking? I personally don't believe that the searches will prevent any more bombings. The terrorists would have to be *very* stupid if they didn't anticipate that extra security would be put in place after the first attacks.
Cole:
"like i say, i have seen nothing but conjecture because none of us are suicide bombers and as such, we cannot know if they are deterred or not"
Of course we can. If you see a sign saying "No trespassing- Dog will bite. Hard." then you don't need to be planning on trespassing to know that the sign deters people.
And the scenarios I have stated are ones that have just sprung to the top of my head while sitting here. Don't you think that a terrorist with a "Master Plan" will have thought of at least some of them? I'm sure that they're not so stupid as to follow exactly the same plan twice.
Cole:
"the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network"
Fine, OK. So what about every other method of public transport, or every other public gathering place? What happens if the terrorists target them? Searches before you get on buses, trains, tubes, cinemas, football grounds etc etc will basically cause commuters to grind to a halt. Plus the police force will be so tied up with these searches that they will be unable to cary out their normal duties effectively.
Well done Cole, you've managed to sum up my viewpoint quite neatly.
Cole:
"i think that to carry out a synchronised attack, the bombers have a solid plan that they have built over a period of time and is one that they believe has a certainty of succeeding.
bag searches at stations introduce an element that marginally reduces the certainty with which they see their actions succeeding and thus the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network.
it may well mean that they change their plans and try to bomb somewhere else instead."
OK, I agree with your reasoning here. But I think the bombers will re-evaluate their plans not because of the searches, but because 4 of their bombs failed to go off altogether. This, I think, more than the searches, will cause them to re-plan.
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
But if they give up on bombing, what else will they try? Automatic weapons? Hostage taking? Hi-jacking? I personally don't believe that the searches will prevent any more bombings. The terrorists would have to be *very* stupid if they didn't anticipate that extra security would be put in place after the first attacks.
Cole:
"like i say, i have seen nothing but conjecture because none of us are suicide bombers and as such, we cannot know if they are deterred or not"
Of course we can. If you see a sign saying "No trespassing- Dog will bite. Hard." then you don't need to be planning on trespassing to know that the sign deters people.
And the scenarios I have stated are ones that have just sprung to the top of my head while sitting here. Don't you think that a terrorist with a "Master Plan" will have thought of at least some of them? I'm sure that they're not so stupid as to follow exactly the same plan twice.
Cole:
"the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network"
Fine, OK. So what about every other method of public transport, or every other public gathering place? What happens if the terrorists target them? Searches before you get on buses, trains, tubes, cinemas, football grounds etc etc will basically cause commuters to grind to a halt. Plus the police force will be so tied up with these searches that they will be unable to cary out their normal duties effectively.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
This is exactly what i was talking about earlier; you've glanced through Coles post, assumed he's suggesting that the terrorists will give up on bombing, and replied on that basis.
Whereas in fact Cole clearly is speaking of 'the bombing' i.e. that particular planned bombing- he's talking about those particualar terrorists aborting that particular bombing, not giving up on bombing altogether.
Similarly, earlier when I used the example of two buildings, one with a search team and the other without. Rather than addressing that example, lightning comes up with the fact that as a terrorist, he'd attack the building with the search team by going in another entrance!!
Does he think I'm so stupid as to propose a building with a search team only on the front entrance? Have I really got to waste my time clarifying a straightforward post for the benefit of someone who's so intent on making their point that they don't give me credit for some basic intelligence?
I'm happy to debate big issues on HOP, i'm happy for them to get a bit intense sometimes, and I'm happy to spend time and effort writing well thought out and intelligent responses to other intelligent and well thought out posts.
What really annoys me about some of these discussions is the amount of time wasted trying to rectify the incorrect assumptions of people who skim over those well thought out posts, see a few key words, and then end up replying to, or arguing against, a point that was never actually intended by the original poster.
Now sethis, i'm not going to say that allyour arguments on this thread are as duff as lightnings were, but I don't personally recall finding any of them particularly insightful- maybe I missed them in the general fog of misunderstandings and dodgy reasoning that has dogged this thread, in which case you have my apologies.
Written by: Sethis
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
But if they give up on bombing, what else will they try? Automatic weapons? Hostage taking? Hi-jacking? I personally don't believe that the searches will prevent any more bombings. The terrorists would have to be *very* stupid if they didn't anticipate that extra security would be put in place after the first attacks.
This is exactly what i was talking about earlier; you've glanced through Coles post, assumed he's suggesting that the terrorists will give up on bombing, and replied on that basis.
Whereas in fact Cole clearly is speaking of 'the bombing' i.e. that particular planned bombing- he's talking about those particualar terrorists aborting that particular bombing, not giving up on bombing altogether.
Similarly, earlier when I used the example of two buildings, one with a search team and the other without. Rather than addressing that example, lightning comes up with the fact that as a terrorist, he'd attack the building with the search team by going in another entrance!!
Does he think I'm so stupid as to propose a building with a search team only on the front entrance? Have I really got to waste my time clarifying a straightforward post for the benefit of someone who's so intent on making their point that they don't give me credit for some basic intelligence?
I'm happy to debate big issues on HOP, i'm happy for them to get a bit intense sometimes, and I'm happy to spend time and effort writing well thought out and intelligent responses to other intelligent and well thought out posts.
What really annoys me about some of these discussions is the amount of time wasted trying to rectify the incorrect assumptions of people who skim over those well thought out posts, see a few key words, and then end up replying to, or arguing against, a point that was never actually intended by the original poster.
Now sethis, i'm not going to say that allyour arguments on this thread are as duff as lightnings were, but I don't personally recall finding any of them particularly insightful- maybe I missed them in the general fog of misunderstandings and dodgy reasoning that has dogged this thread, in which case you have my apologies.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Urgh. Don't have the time to read all the posts, but Lightning, do you think the measures taken in America weren't bad enough before the bag searches? Police being allowed to arrest and imprison people without even giving a reason, and keeping prisoners in places like Guantanamo? I could go on for a while listing things where my ideas of human rights have been sacrificed for security, and the human rights and the freedom of Native Americans and black people in the past.
I can see how a "small thing" like bag searches will upset you, for me, the little thing that upsets me is having my fingerprints taken, or having to hand my insulin and needles to a security person who then ties yellow tape and stickers on the bag while everyone's watching me before I can board a plane. But given that you want to compare the situation on the subway (yet again) to Germany, I think your bag problem compares more to Germans who didn't bother so much about Hitler and antisemitism until their neighbour's shop was closed down, than about someone seeing early signs of what was to come. I wouldn't like having bag searches, but there's so much more going on to do with the same background, fear of terrorism, that I'd consider more important.
On a random side note, some guy searched my bag when I went into a museum last week. I guess he was only looking for cameras though... turned out his wife uses the same glucose test strips as me
Urgh. Don't have the time to read all the posts, but Lightning, do you think the measures taken in America weren't bad enough before the bag searches? Police being allowed to arrest and imprison people without even giving a reason, and keeping prisoners in places like Guantanamo? I could go on for a while listing things where my ideas of human rights have been sacrificed for security, and the human rights and the freedom of Native Americans and black people in the past.
I can see how a "small thing" like bag searches will upset you, for me, the little thing that upsets me is having my fingerprints taken, or having to hand my insulin and needles to a security person who then ties yellow tape and stickers on the bag while everyone's watching me before I can board a plane. But given that you want to compare the situation on the subway (yet again) to Germany, I think your bag problem compares more to Germans who didn't bother so much about Hitler and antisemitism until their neighbour's shop was closed down, than about someone seeing early signs of what was to come. I wouldn't like having bag searches, but there's so much more going on to do with the same background, fear of terrorism, that I'd consider more important.
On a random side note, some guy searched my bag when I went into a museum last week. I guess he was only looking for cameras though... turned out his wife uses the same glucose test strips as me
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Dave:
"...assumed he's suggesting that the terrorists will give up on bombing, and replied on that basis.
Whereas in fact Cole clearly is speaking of 'the bombing' i.e. that particular planned bombing- he's talking about those particualar terrorists aborting that particular bombing, not giving up on bombing altogether"
Sorry, from these statements, I assumed when Cole said "the bombers" I thought he meant all potential terrorists:
"the bombers can carry out a bombing elsewhere"
"at least deter the would-be bombers."
And Cole quite catagorically states:
"it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether"
So I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that he *wasn't* suggesting:
(Dave)
"giving up on bombing altogether"
Which other terrorists could he be talking about? The two cells that attempted or carried out bombings are dead or arrested. The suspected third one has yet to do anything at all. So which "particular" terrorists was he talking about?
Dave:
"Similarly, earlier when I used the example of two buildings, one with a search team and the other without. Rather than addressing that example, lightning comes up with the fact that as a terrorist, he'd attack the building with the search team by going in another entrance!!
Does he think I'm so stupid as to propose a building with a search team only on the front entrance? Have I really got to waste my time clarifying a straightforward post for the benefit of someone who's so intent on making their point that they don't give me credit for some basic intelligence?"
Lightning appears to have left this thread, and I didn't say that so...
My point was that you can't cover every entrance to the underground, nor can you cover every entrance to a building (at least with a feasible sized police presence).
Dave:
"I'm happy to debate big issues on HOP, i'm happy for them to get a bit intense sometimes, and I'm happy to spend time and effort writing well thought out and intelligent responses to other intelligent and well thought out posts."
Glad we agree on that, if nothing else.
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Firepoise and Cole have both suggested that it is a deterrent to futher groups of terrorists. I have said that anyone with more brains than a dead jellyfish could come up with a plan that would not be affected in the slightest by the searches.
Doc was arguing on grounds of morality, and good luck to him. I, on the other hand, am arguing that they are impractical, and worse than useless, because they tie up police resources that could be spent solving crimes, or locating other terrorists.
I *do* try to read other people's post properly, and try to respond intelligently and logically.
Dave:
"...assumed he's suggesting that the terrorists will give up on bombing, and replied on that basis.
Whereas in fact Cole clearly is speaking of 'the bombing' i.e. that particular planned bombing- he's talking about those particualar terrorists aborting that particular bombing, not giving up on bombing altogether"
Sorry, from these statements, I assumed when Cole said "the bombers" I thought he meant all potential terrorists:
"the bombers can carry out a bombing elsewhere"
"at least deter the would-be bombers."
And Cole quite catagorically states:
"it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether"
So I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that he *wasn't* suggesting:
(Dave)
"giving up on bombing altogether"
Which other terrorists could he be talking about? The two cells that attempted or carried out bombings are dead or arrested. The suspected third one has yet to do anything at all. So which "particular" terrorists was he talking about?
Dave:
"Similarly, earlier when I used the example of two buildings, one with a search team and the other without. Rather than addressing that example, lightning comes up with the fact that as a terrorist, he'd attack the building with the search team by going in another entrance!!
Does he think I'm so stupid as to propose a building with a search team only on the front entrance? Have I really got to waste my time clarifying a straightforward post for the benefit of someone who's so intent on making their point that they don't give me credit for some basic intelligence?"
Lightning appears to have left this thread, and I didn't say that so...
My point was that you can't cover every entrance to the underground, nor can you cover every entrance to a building (at least with a feasible sized police presence).
Dave:
"I'm happy to debate big issues on HOP, i'm happy for them to get a bit intense sometimes, and I'm happy to spend time and effort writing well thought out and intelligent responses to other intelligent and well thought out posts."
Glad we agree on that, if nothing else.
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Firepoise and Cole have both suggested that it is a deterrent to futher groups of terrorists. I have said that anyone with more brains than a dead jellyfish could come up with a plan that would not be affected in the slightest by the searches.
Doc was arguing on grounds of morality, and good luck to him. I, on the other hand, am arguing that they are impractical, and worse than useless, because they tie up police resources that could be spent solving crimes, or locating other terrorists.
I *do* try to read other people's post properly, and try
to respond intelligently and logically. After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Sethis, Cole said-
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
ie the terrorists have planned to attack a target- in their eyes it's a juicy one that will cause lots of disruption, lots of death and bring about loads of publicity.
However, on arrival, it's apparent that the target is too well defended- the entrances are covered by search teams.
The terrorists decide not to waste their bomb, and give up on the bombing altogether- they don't give up on bombing- it is quite possible that they could use the same bomb in the future.
and that's all I was saying, giving up the bombing, is not the same as giving up bombing.
It seems to me that your response was directed towards the terrorists giving up bombing altogether, and, as Cole was talking about giving up the bombing altogether, your response is not relevant to what he said.
-----------------
Indeed. Lightning also put forward a few examples of how searches could fail to detect a bomb.
You'll note that I myself have put forward an example or two of how searches could prevent a bombing.
I could have come up with loads more, but I'm not going to because there is no point.
The thing is that the usefulness or otherwise of searches will not be decided by stacking up examples against each other.
For every example of a scenario of a search failing you come up with, I can come up with an example of a scenario where a search succeeds, and on and on, for as long as we want- it will prove nothing.
So, what will establish the usefulness or otherwise of searches?
Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach.
I would think that the best way to establish the true value of searches would be studies on regions with a high level of suicide bombers, the way the authorities approach that situation, and some kind of statistical study to try to determine what role searches have played in lessening the impact of searches.
But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible.
Sethis, Cole said-
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
ie the terrorists have planned to attack a target- in their eyes it's a juicy one that will cause lots of disruption, lots of death and bring about loads of publicity.
However, on arrival, it's apparent that the target is too well defended- the entrances are covered by search teams.
The terrorists decide not to waste their bomb, and give up on the bombing altogether- they don't give up on bombing- it is quite possible that they could use the same bomb in the future.
and that's all I was saying, giving up the bombing, is not the same as giving up bombing.
It seems to me that your response was directed towards the terrorists giving up bombing altogether, and, as Cole was talking about giving up the bombing altogether, your response is not relevant to what he said.
-----------------
Written by: sethis
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Indeed. Lightning also put forward a few examples of how searches could fail to detect a bomb.
You'll note that I myself have put forward an example or two of how searches could prevent a bombing.
I could have come up with loads more, but I'm not going to because there is no point.
The thing is that the usefulness or otherwise of searches will not be decided by stacking up examples against each other.
For every example of a scenario of a search failing you come up with, I can come up with an example of a scenario where a search succeeds, and on and on, for as long as we want- it will prove nothing.
So, what will establish the usefulness or otherwise of searches?
Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach.
I would think that the best way to establish the true value of searches would be studies on regions with a high level of suicide bombers, the way the authorities approach that situation, and some kind of statistical study to try to determine what role searches have played in lessening the impact of searches.
But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Ok, about what Cole said, then that's purely semantics, and depending on what emphasis you put where with your tone of voice it could have meant either of the two points that you said. Another example of why debates in person are better.
That said, my point stands that the terrorists would have to be extremely stupid to walk to a station, having not planned for searches, and think "Oh well, let's go home/ find somewhere else"
Dave:
"Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach."
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
And in your own words:
Dave:
"But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible."
So what other way is there to argue, apart from "example-based ... approach[s]"? If we have no access to official statistics (which are often suspect anyway) and we cannot conduct our own research, then how else are we to arrive at a conclusion other than by logical hypothetical examples?
Ok, about what Cole said, then that's purely semantics, and depending on what emphasis you put where with your tone of voice it could have meant either of the two points that you said. Another example of why debates in person are better.
That said, my point stands that the terrorists would have to be extremely stupid to walk to a station, having not planned for searches, and think "Oh well, let's go home/ find somewhere else"
Dave:
"Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach."
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
And in your own words:
Dave:
"But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible."
So what other way is there to argue, apart from "example-based ... approach[s]"? If we have no access to official statistics (which are often suspect anyway) and we cannot conduct our own research, then how else are we to arrive at a conclusion other than by logical hypothetical examples?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
No, it's not semantics- cole said something in good clear and unambiguous English, and you've misinterpreted it.
With some statements, tone of voice does indeed alter the meaning, but not in this case.
'"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
Deciding not to continue with the original bombing, is very different from giving up on 'bombing'- in the first case it's a matter of aborting one bombing run, in the second it's a case of deciding to never use bombs again.
Now I don't dispute that you cannot distinguish between the two, but the fact remains that the language used clearly does.
There was a time when I couldn't distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' and used them interchangibly- that didn't alter the fact that they are in fact distinct and not interchangeable.
firstly, I don't have a 'side' to argue on the issue of the usefulness of searches- I'm undecided on that.
Secondly, IMO, if I'm pointing out 'flaws' in your argument, you should very much be interested in addressing it, because if you want to convince people you're right, the last thing you need in your arguments are flaws.
Lastly, as this thread seems to be coming down to an off-topic quibble between me and you on what constitutes valid argument, i think it may be time to call it a day?
So I'll apologise if I've caused any offence to you, none intended; it's just that this 'serious discussion' has involved a lot of shoddy 'reasoning' (much of it by individuals other than you), even by HOP standards and I guess I'm starting to question the point of bothering to post on them.
No, it's not semantics- cole said something in good clear and unambiguous English, and you've misinterpreted it.
With some statements, tone of voice does indeed alter the meaning, but not in this case.
'"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
Deciding not to continue with the original bombing, is very different from giving up on 'bombing'- in the first case it's a matter of aborting one bombing run, in the second it's a case of deciding to never use bombs again.
Now I don't dispute that you cannot distinguish between the two, but the fact remains that the language used clearly does.
There was a time when I couldn't distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' and used them interchangibly- that didn't alter the fact that they are in fact distinct and not interchangeable.
Written by:
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
firstly, I don't have a 'side' to argue on the issue of the usefulness of searches- I'm undecided on that.
Secondly, IMO, if I'm pointing out 'flaws' in your argument, you should very much be interested in addressing it, because if you want to convince people you're right, the last thing you need in your arguments are flaws.
Lastly, as this thread seems to be coming down to an off-topic quibble between me and you on what constitutes valid argument, i think it may be time to call it a day?
So I'll apologise if I've caused any offence to you, none intended; it's just that this 'serious discussion' has involved a lot of shoddy 'reasoning' (much of it by individuals other than you), even by HOP standards and I guess I'm starting to question the point of bothering to post on them.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well, the way I read it was that "the bombing" could mean 1. The target they had in mind, and 2. The idea of bombing anywhere. I thought the second, while you thought the first. Fine. OK. Let's call that a day. But I would appreciate it if you could leave the condescension out. I'm an intelligent, rational person and I like to think you are the same. Insults (however they are phrased) have no place here.
Thanks
Well I put "Flaws" in speechmarks to indicate that I do not in fact think that you have given many good arguments against my argument. As soon as someone points out what is actually *wrong* with what I'm saying, or shows that one of my examples is illogical or defunct, then I'll be happy to re-examine my argument. But, and I'll say this again, no-one has yet disagreed with the hypothetical situations that I've outlined.
Basically, if you don't want me to use examples, then I phrase my stance like this:
1. Random searches do not *stop* a terrorist attack if one is being planned. There are simply too many ways to avoid them.
Therefore:
2. It is an invasion of privacy that does not serve any purpose, and it alienates Muslims (who are obviously targeted by this) and anyone with brown skin. The man shot 7 times in the head would not (IMO) have been so quickly executed if he happened to have white skin.
Also:
3. It is a waste of police resources, that could be better used on the police's normal duties, or tracking down other terrorists.
These are the main points of my argument.
I'm happy to call it a day, but I'll have to start another thread to debate on... We appear to have frightened off other people, so maybe we should stop debating quite so loudly
Well, the way I read it was that "the bombing" could mean 1. The target they had in mind, and 2. The idea of bombing anywhere. I thought the second, while you thought the first. Fine. OK. Let's call that a day. But I would appreciate it if you could leave the condescension out. I'm an intelligent, rational person and I like to think you are the same. Insults (however they are phrased) have no place here.
Thanks
Well I put "Flaws" in speechmarks to indicate that I do not in fact think that you have given many good arguments against my argument. As soon as someone points out what is actually *wrong* with what I'm saying, or shows that one of my examples is illogical or defunct, then I'll be happy to re-examine my argument. But, and I'll say this again, no-one has yet disagreed with the hypothetical situations that I've outlined.
Basically, if you don't want me to use examples, then I phrase my stance like this:
1. Random searches do not *stop* a terrorist attack if one is being planned. There are simply too many ways to avoid them.
Therefore:
2. It is an invasion of privacy that does not serve any purpose, and it alienates Muslims (who are obviously targeted by this) and anyone with brown skin. The man shot 7 times in the head would not (IMO) have been so quickly executed if he happened to have white skin.
Also:
3. It is a waste of police resources, that could be better used on the police's normal duties, or tracking down other terrorists.
These are the main points of my argument.
I'm happy to call it a day, but I'll have to start another thread to debate on...
We appear to have frightened off other people, so maybe we should stop debating quite so loudly After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [terrorist * win] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > And the terrorists win [171 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com