|  IP: Logged

Reports like this support the need for extra security:
http://www.kare11.com/news-article.html?NEWS_ID=27108
__________________________________________________________________
"Report: Terrorists Cased Sites Including Mall of America

Internal government reports list the Mall of America as one of at least five sites cased by terrorist groups for possible attacks in the United States.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that two senior Bush administration officials familiar with the reports told the newspaper on condition of anonymity.

The terrorist groups were linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

According to the reports, investigators found sketches or reports describing the mall and the other sites among the possessions of the suicide hijackers and their alleged colleagues. "

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

These policies will stop some outside food, but nothing of importance.

How do corporate policymakers expect an untrained minimum wage employee to stop a woman who looks pregnant, but has a bomb package near her gut? How are these employees expected to stop an apparently obese man in a winter overcoat who might have a similar package, or might just be obese and itching to file a suit for discrimination? Who determines what exactly is too large a purse and what is not? How does anyone in an executive capacity seriously think a 16 year old nose-picking doorman will in any way impede the intentions of a trained terrorist, especially when the bean-counters say there isn't even money for another minimum wage usher to back him up? Why on earth does anyone think that "Freddie Got Fingered" is a terrorist target in the first place? (Come to think of it, maybe that last statement isn't so off the mark...)

I can see it now... "I'm sorry big papa and big mama, you'll have to take your big gut and little joey back to the car, come back and see us again when you are thinner and less pregnant."

There is safety, there is paranoia, and there is follow the leader stupidity. These rules are nothing more than the usual nonsensical "look at us, we're so good" opportunistic dribblings that regularly drip out of overflowing executive urinals, get crystalized into policy, and make things harder for those on the front lines.

<grumble> Sorry. Someone had to say it.

That may be true, but if security measures cause them to choose another (easier) target, your site has just been spared.

Surely you jest

I agree, that in a free society, a terrorist has MANY avenues to wreck havoc that simply can't be stopped. In my opinion, the best way to deal with those that have caused terrorism is that the penalty be so horrific that the terrorism causes the terrorist's cause more harm than good.

The no bags policy in theatres is merely a no outside food n drink policy using a national tragedy as an excuse.

Steve

Read into that however you want to (ex: certain foreign policies, or whatever else drives people to hate America), but the best way to prevent this in the future is to understand why.

Granted, there's always the occasional madman (Hitler, Hussein, for instance).

Our cause is great, and our resolve is just, and we, by all means, will win, eventually against the people on our list, but remember, these people are fighting for their "god". We're fighting for our safety. I'm not sure which one pushes you more.

We'll take out the people in our scopes now, then move onto others. Odds are, somewhere down the road, someone else down the road will rise up as well. It seems throughout history its been like that.

------------------
If ya smell, what the Zach is cooking.

It is also scary to think about how fast numbers will plummet if something does happen at a cinema or arena. One act of terrorism or even the appearance of an act of terrorism and folks will stay home in droves.

Odd, that a senior citizen lady sitting next to me was allowed her shopping bag. Perhaps they're profiling the exclusions of bags?

"oh sure, go on in old lady, you're not a terrorist"

------------------
If ya smell, what the Zach is cooking.