My VERY last comment--you're a ****ing hypocrite.

"If someone were really going to bomb a place they wouldn't call and give warning." -Obi_Quiet

"While technically true, it's not really the same thing. The "Terrorist" didn't call the World Trade Center information line and tell them that they were going to fly two passenger jets into the twin towers." -Capt Bevvil
(note, both those italicised quotes were made *before * DJ Yoshi even made a comment on this issue)

No, actually, neither Yosh or I made the claim. Read back. Obi_Kwiet made the original claim that bombers wouldn't give warning, then you agreed. There's your positive claim. You back it up.

First, again, DJ Yoshi did not make a claim. Obi made a claim, and you backed it up. Second, in my analogy, if certain demands weren't met, I could very likely carry out my threat. Now it's true, if I just wanted to shoot, I'd step up and shoot without any warning, (unless I was psychotic or stupid, which plenty of bombers are). But if I had a goal in mind other than your death, I would make sure to carry that out, and only shoot you if it was in the best interests of achieving my goal. Similarily, if a bomber's only goal is to kill a bunch of people and destroy a bunch of property, then sure, he's not going to warn anyone (again, unless he's psychotic or stupid). But to say that bombers don't have any other goals is pretty narrow-minded. What if the bomber wants to get a bunch of money (ie, "give me 100 billion dollars, or I'll blow up the white house. The bomb's already in place!")?

From what I observed from most criminal acts, the only time a criminal would give a warning that he was about to commit a crime is when a ransom is involved or if he simply wants credit for his criminal act but knows that his act will be damaging despite how the authorities would react. If the goal is just simple terrorism, then no warning would be given because it wouldn't be necessary. Just my two cents.

I don't think Obi wanted to start a big debate over this but both the IRA and ETA used to send warnings to the police (at least some of the time) after they had planted bombs. This causes plenty of disruption on its own as they'd often give a vague area such that the police would have to cordon off large sections. It also sends a message that they have the power and they're in control.
I remember when the IRA caused massive traffic foul ups by telling the police they had planted a bomb under a bridge on a particular motorway.

European terrorist organisations, like ETA and IRA often warned about the bombs a few hours in advance. I can think of at least one instance where this caused greater casualities than if there hadn't been a warning (the IRA mall bombing in the 90's).

A terrorist act doesn't have to kill. Its purpose is to terrorise, and knowing that there WILL be as bombing is equally terrorising as knowing that there has been one (unless perhaps if you were there). Plus with a warning there is the possibility of a ransom.

Um, no, that's not accurate. Obi-Kwiet made the claim that the bombers wouldn't give warning if they truly intended on carrying it out. That's the important part that both of you seem to be missing (and apparent since you left it out). Mega-ZZTer made the initial counter claim by listing an example before Dj Yoshi attempted to back him up, read back. My comment in responds to Mega-ZZTer was a mater of semantics in that his example was not the same as a "bomb threat" where the idea is to simply cause confusion, a disturbance, gain attention, or get out of taking an exam at school. It was a simple fundamental difference that I wanted to get across. I had no intentions of starting anything by it. Dj Yoshi is the one who turned it into an issue.



Argumentative. You could also very likely just run off. Most robbers are less afraid of the punishment for attempted armed-robbery then they are for murder in the 1st.



Without warning, yes I know, that was the whole point.



Argumentative. You're not a qualified psycologist. How do you know that "plenty of bombers are [psychotic or stupid]"? Do you have a reference from someone who is a qualified psycologist to make that assertian?

Muslim Terrorist, for instance, or neither psychotic or stupid. It could be argued that they have been brainwashed, but either way, they are convienced they are doing the right thing (for their religion). That does NOT make them psychotic OR stupid.



The purpose of a legitimate bomb threat (which is the focus of this entire debate) is that your primary goal is death. For example, Parle Harbor, 9/11, Oklahoma City, etc.



Thank you! That was the whole point I was making. Dj Yoshi just likes to start trouble (as he is well known for doing).



This whole argument was excluding bombers with alterior motives. We were focusing on legitmate bombers who's only goal is to cause loss of life and the destruction of a building.

The example you are giving wouldn't do the bomber any good. They'd just evacuate the white house, let him blow it up (if it was legitimate) and then rebuild it. Besides, everyone has watched enough movies to know that the FBI and SS would just trace the lines and find him before he could detonate it. Then again, if he were pyschotic or stupid, then...

The original topic was about school bombings. For that, look at people such as Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber. These people were not psychotic or stupid (as Sarn seems to assert all bombers are). They were more like Rebel Terroists. They have legitimate reasons for doing what they did (rather or not it was right or wrong is subjective. For them, they thought they were helping to solve a problem). Research those two names and you'll get a better understanding of why they did what they did. You may not agree with their methods (I surely don't), but no Psychologist has come forward and said that either was psychotic or stupid. At best, they were tragically misguided. Would they had been just as effective if they gave warning before hand and just targeted the building itself? Perhaps, but in their minds they were waging a war. In a war, you have casualties...and they accepted that.

Yes, there can be strategic advantages to giving a warning such as you described but it's really not the same thing as what we're debating about, specifically.

Everybody shut up before I bomb this thread.

ALERT THE AUTHORITIES!

And anyone who prepares to disarm the bomb planted in this thread, will have this cruel practical joke played on them.

Bevvil, I understand what you're saying. I just think it's a bit narrow-minded to throw out a blanket statement that "no bombers intent on killing or destroying would send in a threat" (not an exact quote), which is, I think, what DJ Yoshi was getting at also. I think you should be willing to accept that there may be situations where a bomber might seriously be planning on detonating a bomb, and still give warning first, in order to cause confusion and chaos as an added bonus. (Imagine for example, a bomb is planted. The bomber detonates with no warning. People die, property is destroyed, money is spent repairing the damage. Now consider the bomber plants the bomb, then phones in a bomb threat. Money is spent investigating the threat, people panic, shutting down the economy, then the bomb blows. Innocent people are killed, porperty is destroyed, more money is spent repairing the damage. In the second scenario, the bombing is far more effective, because it causes chaos and waste of resources *before* the bomb even goes off. Then once the bomb goes off it causes more chaos and waste of resources. Now granted, by providing a warning, the bombing is somewhat less likely to succeed, but if it does, the results will be far more effective.

Also, I'm not asserting that all bombers are psychotic or stupid. In fact, I would agree that most, if not all, bombers are probably incredibly intelligent. But I would assert that they're psychotic (see bipolar, for example). To draw a comparison, look at Bobby Fischer. Awesome chess player, obviously very smart, thinks incredibly logically, but quite off his rocker (I know there's probably not any evidence to suggest that he's considered clinically insane, but consider some of the things he's done). I use the term "psychotic" rather loosely, I know.. But frankly, anyone that thinks they're going to accomplish anything good by killing a large amount of innocent bystanders is, in my book at least, psychotic. Just because you can put yourself in their shoes and see the logic behind their actions doesn't mean they're off the hook.

I apologize if this has been brought up, but I think you can understand if I didn't want to read through two pages of irrelevant bickering.

It's like the boy who cried wolf. In that story (if i'm remembering correctly), the little boy decided to prank the town by telling everyone that a wolf was like, eating all the sheep or some **** like that, but when they went to check it out, there wasn't really a wolf. After he kept doing this, they started ignoring it. Then when the real wolf came by and did eat all the sheep, he tried to warn the town, but everyone ignored him, thinking it was just another dumb prank.

Similarly, if the authorities start ignoring threats when they're called in, then everyone who was really trying to bomb something would, logically, call it in, because then the authorities would ignore it and the terrorists would eat our ****ing sheep.

It's a preventative measure. Like a crazy person taking meds. The meds make the person uncrazy, said person thinks "Hey, I'm not crazy anymore, so I don't need to take my meds!" Person stops taking meds, person becomes crazy again.

OH MY GOD THREE ANALOGIES IN ONE POST LOOK OUT

Looking at it from another angle, I know that a lot of massassians either have, or do, practice some style of martial arts (I did for about 4-5 years). Anyone who's ever sparred a defensive fighter knows that a lot of them usually won't try to hit you if you keep your guard up. The minute they see an opening, though, they'll strike. Just because they don't hit you when your guard is up doesn't mean that they won't when you let it down. If you think that, you'll get the **** knocked out of you.

I mean, I could give a bazillion more examples, but I don't think that will be necessary. MORAL OF THE STORY: DON'T DO DRUGS.

and we must protect the sheep...

Sarn, I just wanted to take a second to quote where this all spawned from to begin with.

[quote=The Mega-ZZter]Originally Posted by The Mega-ZZTer
Well, some people will tell you that 9/11 had plenty of warning and the president's administration failed to act on it. I don't have an opinion on that myself at the moment. (This thread better not turn into a 9/11 conspiricy fiasco now.)[/quote]




I contest that I'm not being narrow-minded. I even agreed to a lot of the points you made as I struggled to try and keep the subject centered around the whole post that set this off in the first place. Feel free to read back and see how it progressed from there. Again, just keep in mind that I was just trying to keep the subject matter centered around school bomb threats, which are typically bogus. I wasn't saying that they shouldn't be acted apon as a real threat, I'm just stating a statistical fact. I don't think giving warning for a school bombing (or any similiar instance where a specific building is given notice) would play into your "panic" scenario very well, as the majority of the school (building) would be evacuated and thus removing the "loss of life" aspect of it. Again, Dj Yoshi was just "tailing" me from the other thread to cause problems here. Evident by his Ad Hominems (such as Poisoning the Well) and other derogatory comments. It's unfortunate that you got somehow flung into it. I'll leave it at that.

eh, I just pulled myself into it cause I enjoy a good debate now and again.

Anyway, I understand your point.