• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 1...3456
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
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.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Sethis

Hang on, does anyone have any idea how many entrances would need to be guarded to protect the subway/tube? And are they seriously going to be searching people who work there?

And even if you do tie up the entire police force with random searches, then you get huge increases in crime, and further drain on police resources.

And how simple would it be for 2 terrorists to bypass the system?

Terrorist 1 goes to the checkpoint, and looks shifty. Police pull him over, and he makes a fuss about the search. 2nd terrorist just walks past while police are busy arguing with his accomplice. And don't try to tell me that the police are stopping everyone who goes past.

Searches just don't work. shrug



Like I said before, bad searches tend to be ineffective- that does not invalidate the value of searching. Make the searches intelligent and anticipate scenarios like your example above.

e.g. While terrorist 1 is causing a distraction, close the entrance until it's dealt with.


"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!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:But that doesn't work either, because 1. If you shut the entrance to the tube for 5 minutes at rush hour, then you will have approx 800 pissed off commuters standing behind you. Can you imagine what would result if you shut the doors every time someone made a fuss? Also, if the 2nd Terrorist is only walking about 4-5 seconds behind the 1st one, then there's no way the police are going to be able to shut the doors in time. Plus I think there's something wrong with delaying hundreds of people to search someone who you have no probable cause to search.

It's just not practical. I see your point, and although me and Doc have been agreeing for most of this thread, I would say that I have little problem with searches *if* they actually accomplished anything. They don't. They are *not* a deterrent to bombers, and *cannot* effectively help prevent attacks.

And I'm just waiting for a survey to be done by someone that shows that Muslims are 90% more likely to be stopped than anyone else. Discrimmination? Me? No sir!


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.

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:"So what's the difference between examining a suspected drunk driver, and examining the bag of someone suspected of carrying explosives? "

I think this is an excellent point.
Random bag searches are based on the suspicion that you may be carrying a bomb.

Where is the difference?

"Now that we've established that they don't work unless you search EVERYONE..."

You may have established that. I don't agree at all.

For those arguing the importance of rights above all else... can I just ask something? Have you ever seen someone who has been caught up in a terrorist attack or shooting?

Just try to put yourself into that position... it's like hell.
For the individual who has to cope with losing limbs. Or perhaps their sight. Or hearing.
For the families who have to cope with the death of a loved one. Or a survivor who will never be the same again.
For the emergency services who arrive on the scene... blood literally running through the streets and body parts strewn across the road (sorry to be so graphic... but this is the reality).

Try to think about what random bag searches are trying to prevent here.

We're not talking about some nightmare police state here - and dramatically stating 'but it could get like that' is just fearmongering.

Random bag searches could prevent scenes like the one above. It is not 100% effective - nothing could be - but it might stop one. And even that is enough.


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:I think the point Doc and me are making is that they *don't* stop bombs. I've listed about 5 problems with the searches, and no-one has yet argued against them.

And in all liklihood, if there is another bomb in America, then Doc *might* be one of the doctors...

The searches *don't* work. And they invade privacy with nothing to show for it.


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.

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:But how can you prove that they don't stop attacks?

You've given reasons as to why you don't think they will work... but how can you know for sure?

And would you risk someone's life on that uncertainty?


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
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.


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.

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
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.


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

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
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.


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
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 umm


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
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


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
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.


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.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
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 wink).



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 rolleyes".



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

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:ditto Cole

Eloquent as ever biggrin


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
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?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted: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

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: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

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:yep. smile



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 hug





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:"Funny, the British government didn't randomly search everyone who looked like an Irishman, now, did they?"

ubblol

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 smile

Delete

Phellan


member
Location: Kamloops, BC

Total posts: 74
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.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: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!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
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?


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.

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
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 wink ubblol

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.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: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

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:Edit: For sethis, cos doc posted too quickly biggrin



spank



hey mister, don't quote me out of context tongue



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 smile

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: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!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
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.


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.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
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 wink

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. shrug


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
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.


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.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:

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!

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
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 wink


"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

Delete

Page: 1...3456

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [terrorist* win] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > LONDON TERRORIST ATTACK- PLEASE CHECK IN IF YOU LIVE/ WORK IN LONDON [311 replies]
2. Forums > And the terrorists win [171 replies]
3. Forums > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven? [62 replies]
4. Forums > Why does the Media keep helping the terrorists? [30 replies]
5. Forums > win a trip to space [6 replies]

     Show more..