A nation racked with fear.

[€uroMeinke]

Last week I was in Philadelphia and thought I'd swing by to see the Liberty Bell on one of my breaks. But the lines for security and baracades were to much to deal with, so I passed it by, smirking at the "new liberty" of the post 9-11 world.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Last week I was in Philadelphia and thought I'd swing by to see the Liberty Bell on one of my breaks. But the lines for security and baracades were to much to deal with, so I passed it by, smirking at the "new liberty" of the post 9-11 world.

Security measures always looked overdone until something happens and everyone says "why weren't we more prepared to stop this?". That's the catch - we have to protect everything we consider historical or important. Terrorists only have to hit one thing to make an impact.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Security measures always looked overdone until something happens and everyone says "why weren't we more prepared to stop this?". That's the catch - we have to protect everything we consider historical or important. Terrorists only have to hit one thing to make an impact.

However the point is, none of these "precautions" are going to stop a damn thing. Really now, can you see this exchange in front of the Liberty bell?
"Excuse me sir, I need to search that backpack", says security. "Of course", say's visitor. "I'm sorry sir, but you can't visit the Liberty bell with a backpack full of C4 Explosives". "Damn, foild again", says visitor. Of course not.

It's like the no parking rule in front of airport drop off spots. It makes perfect sense from a traffic management standpoint but from a anti-terrorist point of view? Come on. A car bomber is not going to worry about getting a ticket and the damage will be done long before a tow-truck can remove the car. So why vale everything in this cloud of security? Call it what it is. A traffic patrol.

We live in an open society and if the price of that has become that we might need to rebuild the statue of liberty, or glue the liberty bell back together then so be it. It's worlds better than generations of Americans growing up not able to see the view from Ms. Liberties crown or pay a visit to the liberty bell.

The next time "something happens" on US soil, all it's going to show is that some of the billions we spent on homeland security were a waist of time and money.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

we have to protect everything we consider historical or important. Terrorists only have to hit one thing to make an impact.

See, this I'm not so sure about - the thing is an object, an artifact - what it represents exists beyond the thing itself. While the Liberty Bell is cool, I don't think it's loss would end liberty any more than World Trade stopped with 9-11.

Somehow locking up the Bell seems a greater win for the terrorists than blowing it up - at least to me anyway.

[Stan4dSteph]

I was in NYC over the weekend and there's one thing I know - there are no rental lockers available since 9/11. This means I had to haul my backpack of clothes into the concert with me because the Amtrak bag check closes at 10 PM and the concert didn't let out until almost midnight.

Seriously people, if you wanted to blow shtuff up, you wouldn't stuff it in a locker. You'd walk into the middle of the freakin' place and detonate the mofo.

[scaeagles]

I agree in principle with what is being said here. But part of security is feeling secure. To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better. Is it logicial? No. But they can say "we're doing something" and be secure in that. Is it logical? No.

Really, though, beyond having an increased presence and visilbility of normal day to day security, what can be done? Nothing. As has been stated, if someone really wants to do it, they probably can.

But this brings me to another point. Why has there been no campaign of car bombings in the US? Or blowing up stores or malls? Would that not have a huge impact for anyone wanting to disrupt our way of life? It makes me wonder if (a) the terrorists are incapable of doing it here for some reason, b) security is doing more than we know, or (c) our intelligence community is doing one hell of a job that we just don't know about.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I see no "nation racked with fear". I really don't.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better.

Errr??

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But this brings me to another point. Why has there been no campaign of car bombings in the US? Or blowing up stores or malls? Would that not have a huge impact for anyone wanting to disrupt our way of life? It makes me wonder if (a) the terrorists are incapable of doing it here for some reason, b) security is doing more than we know, or (c) our intelligence community is doing one hell of a job that we just don't know about.

Honestly I think it's a combination. Yes the intelligence community is doing some good, but I think in the minds of Bin Laden and company things are already going to plan. The US (by which I mean Bush) has pissed away the goodwill and respect of the world that was evident when we went into Afghanistan. Pissed it away on a war of aggression to satisfy the personal vendetta of one man and whether you personally feel that's true or not (I'm guessing not ) I don't think you can deny that is how most of the world looks at it. Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush. So why stir a pot that's already boiling?

Also just to clarify, I'm not arguing for no security anywhere. I'm arguing for effective security. Tracking down terrorists where they live is good. Disneyland is using "security" to get rid of banner towing small aircraft circling their park. Sports stadiums are using "security" to keep people from brining food into the park so they can sell you hot dogs for $6 each.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Errr??

Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush.

Sorry for the confusion. I think one reason why I don't see a nation racked with fear is that security forced, no matter how ineffectual they may be, are almost omnipresent now, and that contributes to a feeling of security. I think if there was no evidence of trying to do something there would be much more angst evident.

I dispute Radical Islam being on the rise faster than Democracy and that being as a result of Mr. Bush. 9/11 happened before any Afghanistan or Iraq policies were implemented (so obviously it was already on the rise), and we are well on the way toward functioning democracies for 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these the only two since the fall of the wall? I think they are, but I am not sure.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush.

I thought we were supposed to blame Newsweek for that...

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But part of security is feeling secure. To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better. Is it logicial? No. But they can say "we're doing something" and be secure in that. Is it logical? No.

Agreed, but I resent spending tax dollars, and giving up a measure of our freedom, to pacify Joe Moron. Better to spend that money on education and maybe break the cycle of stupidity that exists in Joe Moron's family.