...and you wonder why Bush thinks he needs so much security.

[sirtonyh]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**I’ve yet to hear of an intruding journalist who actually assassinated a head of state, or the like, just to prove it could be done. **

Mmmm, must resist temptation to find new career as investigative journalist.

“President Bush hit on head with large bat by undercover reporter. Reporter claims trying to knock sense into him”

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**The difference would be that a lot of crackers who say this actually do wreak havoc.

I’ve yet to hear of an intruding journalist who actually assassinated a head of state, or the like, just to prove it could be done. **

But havoc has still been wreaked. There will consequences for this individual’s actions. Jobs may be lost. More restrictions added, new procedures that will only affect and annoy innocent parties…all because this nimrod wanted to prove he could do it.

I say “great, you proved it. Now, here are the consequences you have to pay”.

Because proving you can beat security doesn’t make it OK to beat security. I think I could could get a lethal weapon on an airplane. Does that make it OK for me to do it? I mean, I would actually use it…I just want to show it can be done, right?

I just don’t feel good about it…

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**But havoc has still been wreaked. There will consequences for this individual’s actions. Jobs may be lost. More restrictions added, new procedures that will only affect and annoy innocent parties…all because this nimrod wanted to prove he could do it.

I say “great, you proved it. Now, here are the consequences you have to pay”.

Because proving you can beat security doesn’t make it OK to beat security. I think I could could get a lethal weapon on an airplane. Does that make it OK for me to do it? I mean, I would actually use it…I just want to show it can be done, right?

I just don’t feel good about it… **

Reality check needed at this point.

“Jobs may be lost”, yes, probably in the hiring and security checking departments.

“More restrictions added, new procedures”, good idea. That’d be the correct response.

“that will only affect and annoy innocent parties”, see here’s the problem. As others have already pointed out, the likely effect is that cosmetic changes to security will be made, which “only affect and annoy innocent parties” and do absolutely nothing to actually improve security.

[Typo_Negative]

Yes.

Security will not actually be improved.

What I’m saying, and all I’m really saying here, is that this guy is a nimrod and should be shunned from decent society. He is not a hero, he has done NO good. Nothing will improve because of his little stunt. He has done harm. Not egregious harm, I grant you, but harm nonetheless.

[robertliguori]

[quote]

No, this guy has not harmed anyone. The morons who will try to implement ever-more-stringent and still-useless security protocols and the bigger morons who accept them will piss off a lot of people. Blame them.

[Typo_Negative]

And what do you think the point of the little excercize was, beyond the obvious self-aggrandizement.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Duke *
**FIFA is quite unique among major sports, I believe, in routinely granting national association status to non-sovereign countries. **

There’s the International Olympic Committee, too. They recognize “national” committees of Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, and I think a few others.
What’s the OP topic again? This was obviously done BOTH to explore security and to sell papers. There’s no conflict.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, and something called “Chinese Taipei” that exists only every 4 years. Shouldn’t have left them out.