[FreedomPoster]

>>They were designed to attract attention from people who have been trained to look for bombs.

Please go read Caesar Soze's post #48, and get back to us on that.

[bondjamesbond]

Please go read Caesar Soze's post #48, and get back to us on that.

Please go read my post #80 and get back to us on that.

These were effective advertisements because they were designed to play on what people are looking for in a bomb. That may be stupid, but it is what it is.

You go placing these things on vital infrastructure all over town, somebody is going to notice and react. Certainly you are not contending that this reaction was not entirely forseeable, if not inevitable.

They were designed to elicit the reaction they got. Free advertising for Turner at the cost of paralyzing a city for a day. Lots of buzz for Turner at the cost of planting in the mind of people that unauthorized devices strapped to bridge supports is no big deal.

But no blood, no foul... right?

[Caesar Soze]

Lest you put too much faith in me, I'm not an explosives specialist. But I've been through the usual IED briefings and a little more, and I've done some reading on my own. I take the threat of roadside explosives very seriously, and when Fox News reported the devices resembled Iraqi IEDs, I was very concerned. It looked like an Al Qaeda style attack, with multiple explosives emplaced for simultaneous detonation, using techniques developed in Iraq.

But then ... it turned out that they were just little light-up signs. Perfectly harmless in both form and function. I have been somewhat put off by the scope of Boston's overreaction and the fearmongering and bad reporting by the media. "Security" doesn't mean locking down cities, rushing around, and blowing your top every time something a little unusual happens. It means effectively and efficiently employing limited resources to safeguard yourself. I think Boston's actions were grossly inefficient, and far more dangerous to our security than the guerilla marketer..