Aqua Teen "hoax" in Boston

Did anyone else note the obvious references to “planting” the devices? This person who was arrested was going around “planting devices” (cue scary music). Gotta love the media. I guess saying he was arrested because he was the one putting up the advertisements just does not sound as bad.

Not necessarily. I just heard one of the first responders on WBZ-Radio discussing the events of the day. Among the things he said:

He recognized the cartoon character when he saw it. This did not reassure him that the whole thing was harmless, since one way of concealing a nefarious item is to hide it in plain sight by disguising it as something innocuous.

He saw at least one of the devices up close. He said it had immediately visible two of the four things he’d been trained to look for in improvised explosive devices: A power source (and yes, common household batteries will work just fine for setting off a bomb) and a switch means. The items were easily large enough to be concealing enough explosives (low yield to initiate the explosion and high yield to do the real damage) behind their silly facades to take down any of the bridges or overpasses they were underneath.

As the day wore on and it became apparent the devices being found were some sort of hoax, there still remained reasons for concern. One technique of terrorists planning an attack is to do dry runs that will trigger response from the authorities. The terrorists can observe the reactions, note areas where the response is inadequate or sloppy, note patterns of how such incidents are handled, and incorporate the knowledge gained into their planning. (I should point out that these devices were planted in three different municipalities – Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville – and were well-scattered within Boston itself.)

Another technique of terrorists is to plant several devices, most of which are in fact harmless, with the expectation that the responders will be lulled into carelessness that will get them killed when they come across a live one.


So, all of you snickering about how could the authorities not have known it was just advertising:  Since no one involved in this stunt had bothered to alert the proper authorities beforehand about the campaign, or get permission to place the devices; since most of the devices found were on or adjacent to support structures for main thoroughfares or close to public transportation stations (anybody recall what happened in Madrid?  London?); since, silly-looking or not, they displayed indicia of explosive devices; do you really think it would be appropriate to shrug them off?

:confused: That doesn’t look like a Lite-Brite at all. The Lite-Brite I’m assuming most people here grew up with had a black front (actually black paper) that covered a plastic plate with evenly spaced holes through which a bright bulb would shine. Little colorful plastic pins – a bit higher than the LEDs used in the devices – were pushed through to create images. Mine was encased in white plastic; later models were trimmed down a bit, though I’m not familiar with later case colors.

I agree with everything you said, with the exception of the above quote. Would you have reported one of these devices as a bomb?

Where do we draw the line between this and “inciting panic” or whatever they charged that guy with?

Sure, one guy placed an object that was “questionable” to any reasonable person in a public place. It was not a bomb. Did the guy that put the thing there “incite panic”? Did the person who freaked out at a cheap lite brite display incite panic?

In this case, the PR firm is clearly to blame in the “inciting panic” role. The line can clearly be blurred though. A city can’t have a “report anything suspicious, but make sure not to incite panic” law. But they do, don’t they?

Now that I’ve made my decision on this, I can answer this comment: only if you pre-assume that the city is run by a bunch of asshatted morons.

The fact that they are repeatedly calling this a “hoax” (a hoax of WHAT???) just goes to show that they are in full ass-covering mode.

Since I’m in the Boston area, it figures I should definitely post in this thread.
As most of you folks know, I am not a big fan of the police, politicians (you know - ‘the Man’).
Well, I think the response to these “harmless” little publicity pranks was quite appropriate. Yes, other posters have mentioned about suspicious objects in trash cans might get a similar response. However, an object that is placed on a bridge support is going to gather much more concern don’t you think?
If this were 6 years ago, I’d say it was over-reacting. Also from a pre-9-11-2001 perspective, I would have said the publicity stunt was relatively harmless and maybe we’d all have a good laugh over it. It might not even had made the national news back then. Not anymore. Things have seriously changed in the last 5 ½ years.

I’m sorry, but calling it a “hoax” is self-serving in the extreme.

Arguments about what terrorists can do have quickly turned into something akin to theological arguments about what God can do. They justify everything and nothing. As previous posters have pointed out, one thing terrorists could do is plant bombs in public wastebaskets. Therefore, they must be destroyed.

Clearly the guy involved should have notified the city, although given the quasi-legality graffitti nature of what he was doing, this was probably deliberate. But the city is also clearly recognizing that it overreacted and is now trying to cover its ass.

I’m with you, but let’s get real. We’re effectively telling people to look for everything and nothing.

Bombs are usually made to be indestinguishable from everyday objects, that makes them more effective, because they generate less suspicion, and maximize casualties. This makes us treat any package as a potential bomb.

The fact that harmless shopping bags, poorly conceived marketing projects, people’s backpacks, and run of the mill trash, have all been treated as “possibly explosive devices” and have proven to be harmless, makes us more likely to ignore items that could be used efectively as bombs.

There is not now, nor will there be soon, any solution to this problem.

more info from the Globe:

They have arrested a second person who helped put up the signs.

As for trashcans, they were removed from the subway stations and platforms after the London bombings. They are being replaced with designs that are supposed to be safer.

I was trying to get a bus from Sullivan Square this morning and I still can’t really get too upset at the emergency responders for this. I am sure these decisions are a lot tougher to make in the field. These days, they really don’t have much choice but to err on the side of caution.

I just hope they don’t make scapegoats of these two guys they arrested.

Totally agree, and I don’t see any solution, either.

“If you have a problem with that maybe you should take that up with Mr. Laser.”

-Ignignokt

The wolfen will come for you with his razor.

I’d really like someone to debate the justice in charging these two guys with felonies. What’s the rationale?

I mean, other people put up these things in other cities. Nothing happened. I very much doubt any of those people will face similar felony charges for doing the exact same things.

So what’s the legal argument for culpability or foreseeable harm? Should the guys in Boston have known that Boston was ESPECIALLY excitable and stupid? If Boston hadn’t freaked out, nothing would have come of it, the way nothing came of it in all the other cities. How can whether or not they committed a felony rest on whether or not Boston decides to go overboard?

If presumptively blowing up anything that citizens report as looking weird is to be the new policy, isn’t that a cost that should be paid by the taxpayers?

It is.

None of this is good.

Let me reiterate: stop calling it a hoax. It was not a hoax. Calling it a hoax gives credibility to these ego-wounded shits trying to not look like ego-wounded shits. The lite-brites were not meant to look like bombs, they were supposed to look like rat-bastard Atari sprites from the moon.

IT WAS NOT A HOAX.

It is a FUCKING LIE to say that they were. I hope at least these poor guys’ lawyers aren’t too mouth-breathingly stupid to realize that, unlike the geniuses in the department of homeland security.

Ignorance is strength.

I think that’s actually the motto of this website. I’ll have to check to be sure.

I’m almost tempted to call in to Boston and tell them that the Andre the Giant OBEY stencils are actually made out of anthrax powder. You think I can get them to blow up every telephone pole in town?

Oh for Pity’s sake! Now even dolphins can’t play in their tanks in peace! Dolphin’s toy mistaken for a bomb. :smack: This is fucking ridiculous!

You’re sure the motto isn’t a pipe bomb? :smiley:

I worry that you might have missed my meaning with the ignorstrength thing, so please indulge me here. I agree with you about the “everything and nothing” argument. What we saw today was not vigilance, it was paranoia. Why stop with garbage cans or other more inconspicuous stuff where someone would most likely put a bomb in real life? There are flurries tonight. How do I know that’s really snow? For all I know it could be anthrax!

On preview, Apos beat me to the anthrax joke. Shit. Oh well, I’ll run with it anyway. :stuck_out_tongue:

Another wrinkle: apparently this marketing campaign was written up beforehand in, among other publications, Time Magazine. Can’t confirm with a link yet, but I’m working on it.