bingo...
Posted on 09/18/2009 1:54:53 PM PDT by Cindy
Note: Video included.
Suspicious device found under WDW bus Updated: Friday, 18 Sep 2009, 12:19 AM EDT Published : Thursday, 17 Sep 2009, 5:34 PM EDT
SNIPPET: "LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Investigators with the Orange County Sheriff's Office Hazardous Device Unit have determined that an object attached to a Walt Disney World bus is not explosive or hazardous. Once that determination was made, investigators removed the object from the bus for further examination. It is still unclear what the object is or why it was placed on the bus.
Employees located the object attached to the undercarriage of a WDW bus. The bus was undergoing routine maintenance at a back stage maintenance facility. Members of the Orange County Sheriff's Office Hazardous Device Team responded to the maintenance facility just after 3 p.m. to evaluate the device and determine how to proceed."
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxorlando.com ...
My thought too, at first. But then I thought, why bother with a dry run, since that might expose your intentions. Maybe a training run, with the real mission to be conducted elsewhere. Or just a "demonstration". of some sort, although that's not the Muzzi terrorist's style.
bingo...
May I pass along my congratulations for your great interdimensional breakthrough. I am sure, in the miserable annals of the Earth, you will be duly enshrined.
:-)
One of my favs.
"....attention....attention....there are monkey-boys in the complex...."
One man’s suspicious device is another man’s granny, reverend or former best friend.
Good thing it wasn’t under the bam bus, it would have been a threat to thousands.
It is a distraction. While everyone is looking under busses, you plant the bioagent dispersal unit under the roller coaster, 'dust' the wristbands, contminate the water, whatever.
Terrorism does not require an effective device, just the hint of one is usually sufficient to cause the perceived threat level to increase.
It isn't just about body count, it is about the psychological effect.
Maybe someone who's going there tomorrow wanted to scare people away so they could have shorter lines for themselves.
What you are talking about here is harassment not terrorism.
Yes a certain number of people will be frightened by a hint of a threat like this one but by and large the press will not even report an incident like this one unless the device is an actual bomb that failed to go off. (If it bleeds it leads) The only place this will be reported is the local news.
So with the exception of security bulletins that would be issued by HLS to LEOs this Dry Run will be unknown to the general populace and will have little general effect except to irritate people because of longer slower lines because of a higher level of security for a short period of time until the threat level is lowered.
True terrorism requires dead bodies on the 6 o’clock news instilling fear in the majority of the population.
While media dissemination of events helps the terrorist cause by spreading the terror, anything which causes a change in the way people do things is effective.
Something under is bus is no biggie, but even the most downplaying article plants the thought in the minds of bus travellers that the bus might have a bomb underneath.
For nay bus company, that means failure to assuage the doubts of their passengers translates to decreased revenue, with the inevitable effect that now a great show will be made of checking under the bus.
Small, subtle perhaps, but effective in that resources have been tied up in hiring people to conspicuously wheel around mirrors to check for bombs so the passengers are happy.
While the driver should be fully capable, someone in a uniform wearing a badge would be more 'convincing' in the public eye, so resources are allocated to alleviate the presumed threat.
Any act which instills fear or causes a behavioural change in the target population is effective. While blood in the streets and collapsing buildings might be very effective, they also cause a reaffirmation of national resolve in Americans, a 'get the SOBs who did this' mentality, rather than the more stressful feeling of being less than secure in one's home country, a feeling of security which most Americans take for granted.
In this instance, "it could have been a bomb" is likely more effective psychologically than images of shattered (even children's) bodies on the TV. While the latter would cause grief in many, it would cause anger in many more, while the former causes ongoing doubt.
But if there is no article there is no tiny thought in anyone’s mind. .
This article is from MyFox Orlando, did it get picked up anywhere else? I didn’t see it.
“If it bleeds it leads.” No blood no national news.
If this was an act of a terrorist it was pretty ineffective because it got mentioned in the news in only one metro area and because the device could not be identified as a bomb its impact there was negligible.
I don’t really buy your comment on anger either. True a certain part of the public would be angered by a terrorist blowing up children. But one lesson I have learned from 9-11 about the public’s anger against terrorist is that with out the press keeping that anger alive it is not sustained.
The national press made a conscious decision some time after the 9-11 attacks to play down the terrorist attack. With out the occasional reminder of the outrage of the unprovoked attacks on innocents in this country the public’s anger dissipated and the anger shifted to the countries leader a Republican President.
Perhaps things would be different now that the President is a Democrat. Perhaps the press would be more supportive of anti-terrorist activities but I don’t think so. The press is still hesitant to use the word terrorist. And the press still seems to be very anti-war.
No, in the long run only some of us remember. Many need to be reminded because they will post the event in their mind as 'done, over with, happened elsewhere, history'. While in the back of their mind, the anger is reserved for the public servants who work to ostensibly prevent the next incident in a reactive state.
It is a question of percieved threat which makes people either angry or concerned, I fully agree. Failure of the media to keep that perception alive permits it to fade, and even while we are engaged in a war with the enemies who perpetrated 9/11, the media permit its memory to fade.
That is as much an indictment of the media as the public, if not more so.
But while so many sat aboard hijacked airliners and placidly waited to be released in the past, 9/11 hammered into the American psyche that that just might not happen, and keeping/regaining control of the plane is essential if you want to stay alive.
So even at that base level it has caused a change in our resolve.
Unfortunately, beyond that there are many who easily forget, and just 10 years from now, those who cannot remember will be voting.
Sooner than that I think.
I think I read an article this past week about a survey of high school seniors that found that a fairly large percentage did not remember where they were on 9/11/2001 (pretty sure it was more than 50%).
If today’s seniors can not remember where they were on 9/11 and the schools are not teaching them what really happened and the news organizations rarely speak of 9/11 then in just a few years those who were 5 or less years old when it happened will have no idea at all what happened on 9/11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.