Slashdot Mirror


Al-Shabaab Video Threat Means Heightened Security at Mall of America

Reuters and other news outlets carry the news that the Minnesota's gigantic Mall of America is under heightened security after a video threat posted online by terrorist group Al-Shabaab. Also at CNN and CBS News. According to Reuters' version of the story: The U.S. homeland security chief said on Sunday he takes seriously a threat made by Somali-based Islamist militants against shopping malls, including the Mall of America in Minnesota, and urged people going there to be careful. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was reacting to a video released by al Shabaab appearing to call for attacks on Western shopping areas, specifically mentioning Mall of America, the West Edmonton Mall in Canada and London's Oxford Street. ... Mall officials issued a statement about the threat made by the group, saying they are monitoring events with the help of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. "Mall of America has implemented extra security precautions, some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be," the officials said.

241 comments

  1. It looks like by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1, Troll

    They were not given good discounts .. They should shop at wall mart ..

    1. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Those people are psychopathic mass murderers. Not something to joke about.

    2. Re:It looks like by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know , I'm not joking but what the hell are they going to get by attacking a mall for god sakes! just beyond me ..

    3. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terrorist attacks have two goals: 1) Damage the economy. People who have no hope for the future are their recruits. 2) Make resistance to them so frightening that people capitulate to their demands.

    4. Re: It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attention. Read an article the other day that said many of these radical extremists believe it's the end times, and their goal is to bring about Armageddon.

    5. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your opinion, Prudence McPhilistine. Maybe you should get back to church now.

    6. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those people are psychopathic mass murderers. Not something to joke about.

      No, they are as rational as state actors. That tells you a lot.
      Americans don't understand the underlying nature of terrorism. Terrorism is always about a political endgame. You cannot take the politics out of the equation lest you misunderstand the whole situation.
      Trying to frame the debate as "them vs us" or "our values against theirs" is useless and serves only to rile the fanatics (on both sides). You really think that staging wars against the an ill defined enemy across the world and for an indeterminate amount of time according to American policy is somehow rational ? A forever war, that's what we're getting with those in power.

    7. Re: It looks like by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      By attacking a mall ? why not start with the US Army ? .. These guys show the world that they do not have balls between their legs ..

    8. Re:It looks like by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      According to what some captives who later escaped overheard, they don't talk much about strategy, politics or theology. More like "let's go rape some children, yay!"

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:It looks like by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on. Even during the Blitz, Britons made jokes about the Germans. Humor is how people cope with stressful situations, and it is a hell of a lot better a way to deal with terrorist threats than running around screaming your fool head off, or worse, in some ways, become a hyper-serious worry wort believing at any moment you're going to die in some terrorist bomber's explosion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:It looks like by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Right .. taking them with a pinch of salt really pisses them .. hehe ..

    11. Re: It looks like by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because attacking the Army directly would lead to instant loss. Attacking civilians is a much more successful strategy.

    12. Re:It looks like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not joking but what the hell are they going to get by attacking a mall for god sakes!

      Mentioned on Slashdot?

      Seriously, I think it's all about being as shitty as possible. It's like 8chan with religious self-justification.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:It looks like by Guy+From+V · · Score: 2

      C'mon dude this whole Islamic Caliphate isn't anything...

      (_)

      ( _)>-

      (_) ...to lose your head over.

    14. Re:It looks like by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      lol, I guess I've never fucking tried "ASCSI" characters here before.

    15. Re: It looks like by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      and their goal is to bring about Armageddon.

      Their strategy of bringing about armageddon ?

    16. Re:It looks like by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > what the hell are they going to get by attacking a mall for god sakes!

      To terrorize, an extreme form of intimidation.

      Remember "Apocalypse Now" : "Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared."

      The idea is to make people afraid of ever offending Islam. To be afraid of getting on an airplane, or shopping at the mall, or drawing a carton, or expressing an opinion. After a while, it because easier to submit to Islam than to live in constant fear.

      And it works. It works like all hell. There are 57 Muslim nations, practically all taken by force. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims. No other ideology has grown so fast.

    17. Re: It looks like by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      This article describes it well.

      They want to lure the western powers into a giant war in Syria because their religion tells them that this will lead to the End Times.

    18. Re:It looks like by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They are not actually attacking anything. They don't specifically know anybody here who they have ordered to attack this mall.

      This is a "will somebody in America go to the mall of america and do something bad there. please." request.

      It may or may not work [to get somebody to actually do it], but they have already succeeded in getting us to cower in fear of the attack. Which is exactly what they want.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists can actually function in the Minnesota winter?

    20. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We don't go in the woods because there are man eating pumas in the woods"
      "Kill the pumas"

    21. Re:It looks like by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

      Terrorist: "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    22. Re: It looks like by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The US army seems to not be on the field of battle right now. Obama is sending signals that he will not use ground forces outside a few discrete surgical strikes. It's mostly an air war.

      What a lot of these people believe, and this goes back to the 12'er sort of reasoning is that major battles will happen in historic religious places (as their interpretations of religious texts indicate). All the beheading and so on is to try to lure a large army into battle in these places. This threat on a mall is to lure the US army or the "Armies or Rome" into battles in these places that will supposedly cause someone to reenter the fray and start Armageddon.

    23. Re:It looks like by Greystripe · · Score: 2

      I understand that salted pork works even better.

    24. Re: It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember everyone: be afraid! Always. Give up your rights so the cops can protect you from, well, we don't really know but you need protecting from it.

      Oh, and never notice or call attention to the fact that the people who say all this stuff can't ever stop a real terrorist attack (unless they set it up in the first place as a sting operation)

    25. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead non-muslims, and then the reward of 72 virgins in heaven.

    26. Re:It looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the hell are they going to get by attacking a mall for god sakes

      Ask them! The group in question is the same one that performed a multi-day attack and hostage killing drama at an upscale mall in Nigeria, killing about 80 people. They're proposing exactly such acts elsewhere, for the same reasons they did it there: they consider western culture to be insufficiently Allah-esque, and they think they've got not only holy license to slaughter evil westerners and people who think like them, but a duty to do so. They want a medieval theocratic culture ruled by Sharia law, and they think that chopping away, violently, at modernity is the way to do it.

    27. Re:It looks like by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that the jokes made at the time were fairly dark. Having spend a fair amount of time in Israel the people there have a fairly dark sense of humor around terrorism and war as well. When you see a tee-shirt with "Guns and Moses" written on it with a couple of crossed Kalashnikovs on it it becomes apparent pretty quick. Besides humor is one of the ways we deal with stressful situation.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    28. Re: It looks like by mcswell · · Score: 1

      "the people who say all this stuff can't ever stop a real terrorist attack"

      And you know this how?

  2. I want a picture by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Of one of those mall cop Segways newly equipped with ordnance mount points.

    1. Re:I want a picture by ls671 · · Score: 2

      Can they mount Linux partitions on these mount points?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:I want a picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom's a mount point.

    3. Re:I want a picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the ordnance is controlled by systemd

    4. Re:I want a picture by bmimatt · · Score: 2

      Yes, they can, but it is limited to ReiserFS.

  3. visibility doesnt matter. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    impact is what counts, and groups like Shabaab understand that even if they are incapable of rendering an attack, its the threat that counts most. Commercial targets instituting checkpoints and screening are what these groups are going for, as these hallmarks serve as a consistent reminder that Shabaabs presence is taken seriously by america as a legitimate threat they cannot proactively reduce or mitigate through normal foreign policy to a level that would permit the american "way of life."

    legitimate terrorist attacks have no source, no warnings, are unpredictable and incur large-scale casualties. The boston marathon bombing is an excellent example of a functional implementation of terrorism. One or two of these every 10 years and you dont need funding or training for anything else. just send a tweet or post a youtube, and the target entity will do all the work to ensure your message and intent are expressed.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the best way to frustrate them is to aggressively take down every video and communique they post. Lowers the audience they can reach to recruit, and reduces the incentive for them to do more and more extreme acts "to get attention" if it doesn't work.

      Now some people will get up in arms about freedom of speech - however, i would point out that the people making these posts are non-citizens, and they certainly don't believe in freedom of speech (or other freedoms).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that our own government seems to WANT us to be terrified of the "terrorists".

      Which is why spokespeople for our government are making sure that as many of our people are aware of the "threats" as possible.

      The government should be posting videos of its own MOCKING them. And re-editing their videos.

      And taking down the worst ones WITHOUT TELLING EVERYONE THAT YOU ARE TAKING THEM DOWN BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BAD AND HERE IS WHY THEY ARE SO BAD.

    3. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

      impact is what counts, and groups like Shabaab understand that even if they are incapable of rendering an attack, its the threat that counts most. Commercial targets instituting checkpoints and screening are what these groups are going for, as these hallmarks serve as a consistent reminder that Shabaabs presence is taken seriously by america as a legitimate threat they cannot proactively reduce or mitigate through normal foreign policy to a level that would permit the american "way of life."

      Personally I think everyone's overreacting. I was curious so I did searches for "largest mall in America" and "Largest mall in Canada" and the two North American malls were the first hits. This is reminicent of the joke from the first Die Hard movie, where Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber is listing terrorist groups that he wants freed in exchange for releasing hostages; one of his mooks questions one of the groups and he quietly replies, "I read about them in Time Magazine." This seems more like someone looked up what the biggest malls are, and made a list, more than having significant targets.

      London's Oxford Street is also listed as the largest shopping area in Europe, so I expect that it was similarly found through some kind of search. Granted, if terrorists are operating out of the Middle East then it's probably a little easier to get to London than it is North America, but even still, after The Troubles, the UK has a lot of experience dealing with terrorism even in its own borders, so I doubt that it's any more of a credible threat than the other two.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Beat them at their own game:

      If you don't kill people for Allah you get SEVENTYTHREE VIRGINS at Paradise 2.0!!

    5. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      This.

      The United States came out of a depression via WWII.

      That business model has been embraced ever since.

      It's important that we continue to be at war because in times of peace, our youth have few jobs, and Big Business' CEO salaries are hard to justify.

      Notice the drive to, "Hire A Veteran!"

      The same thing happened after we lost the war in Vietnam and it's happening again after we lost the war in Iraq and we lost the war in Afghanistan.

      America is in the business of providing war materials, people, and technology.

      We have the best in weaponry and we invest trillions of dollars and shitloads of lives and injured.

      Still, we have never won a war since that eye-opener revenue stream, , WWII.

      For Big Business to continue ramping up to support CEO salaries; for politicians to continue to support those CEOs for campaign funds, and for the US to prevent economic collapse, fucking with the Middle East will continue.

      Americans don't have a Plan B revenue stream.

      Meanwhile, preaching patriotism and shunning those who don't embrace that farce, providing a megaphone for terrorists, serves to cement the idea that We The People must do whatever we can to support the salaries of Big Business CEO salaries.

      Anyone who disagrees with me is an unpatriotic bitch or bastard (as applies) and stuff.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it has something to do with the difficulty, particularly in Western countries with as strong a set of protections of free expression as the First Amendment, of actively censoring anyone. I personally refuse to watch ISIS videos of people being beheaded or burned alive, and I have a dim view of those that do, but I'm not sure I like the idea of anything other than a voluntary take down of these awful videos.

      Beyond that, of course, is the sheer impracticality of ever hoping to take down any more than a fraction of these kinds of videos. Sure, you can seize some sites, but there are so many ways that terrorists can get their torture porn on the web that it's literally a game of whack the mole, with thousands of moles.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't think of a better way to create a region where the population will hate you forever, especially since most people there won't actually be terrorists.

    8. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is right .. and the shabaats ( whatever ) will have to take the presence of the little fella called a cruise missile quite seriously ..

    9. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That old saw about WWII ending the Depression? Not really very compelling ... there was a lot of debt-financed spending, but it's not a good tradeoff; if anything, WWII may have greatly prolonged the Depression, besides resulting in the death of millions (which is pretty ... depressing).

      http://mises.org/library/world...

    10. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Without WW2, and the stimulus that it gave to science and technology, where do you think we would be?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that our own government seems to WANT us to be terrified of the "terrorists".

      Of course it does - they want people to give them more money and power.

      You're eight times more likely to be killed this year by a cop than a terrorist, and that's including 9/11 (and let's not even discuss swimming pools and motor vehicles or the flu).

      But do you see Obama scare monger mongering about any of that? Of course not - there's no play for more power on those. There's no campaign coffer to fill with deposits from the military industrial complex from those.

      Understand the motivations and then the actions make perfect sense.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      No, the best way of frustrating an enemy like that is simply ignoring them. The technique works on pretty much any type of fundamentalism. You can see the effectiveness by ignoring a fundy Christian (eg. a family member) whenever they start talking about the end-of-days or whatever.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars

    14. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      There will be an end of days. Once the sun has expanded and engulfed earth, both sides of Earth will be illuminated. So no more days or nights.

      This is only a hypothesis, but it's not a bad one given all the evidence in the sky.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    15. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      What's with all the scare quotes?

    16. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The problem is that while you or I can ignore someone, there are people out there looking for something to give them some sort of power in their miserable lives - they're the ones who are recruited by these videos.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      legitimate terrorist attacks have no source, no warnings, are unpredictable and incur large-scale casualties.

      No, legitimate terrorist attacks are an attempt to force political change by use of intimidation or force (and a threat is intimidation). This doesn't work if the targets don't know the attacker or what the attacker wants.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    18. Re: visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as our government was doing? Until homeland needs some money, and they have to release vids and threats of and such? So who is the real enemy? The group that posts videos or the extortionist that needs funding?

    19. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      And you can't stop an idiot from being an idiot. If they don't join ISIS, they'll join the military, your local police force or a mall security detail. If they join ISIS at least they have a higher chance of being taken out of the reproductive pool.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    20. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by gtall · · Score: 1

      You don't understand our government, it isn't they want us to be terrified, it is that they are terrified of a terrorist incident on their watch. It tends to get pols de-elected and agency heads demoted. The government generally hasn't said squat about terrorism other than answer questions posed by the Press. Hell, Obama cannot even utter the words Islamic Terrorism.

    21. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by gtall · · Score: 1

      You mean if they join Daesh AND go to Syria to be with the rest of that smelly lot. If they were instead to join Daesh and remain here and decide to act out their fantasies, then it very much becomes our problem.

    22. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there's also a large infestation of Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities, the location of the MofA. So it makes sense as a problem spot and the mall being there is part of why it's a choice target.

    23. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what? would somebody lie? Just to rustle the jimmies of someone suffering from severe paranoia?

    24. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without WW2, and the stimulus that it gave to science and technology, where do you think we would be?

      Hitting up Rockefellers and Carnegies for eugenics funds, scrounging away at IBM while secretly selling tabulating machines to Germany, all the while calling it "world peace through world trade."

      Poor Roosevelt would probably just take campaign contributions and look the other way to any anti-trust allegations...it would be the complete breakdown of law and order and civil society!

      The purchasing of the presidency by the corporate elite!

      Nixon would probably take huge ITT donations, and plan operations involving yachts and prostitutes and recording equipment.

      It sure would be a bleak existence, just barely scraping by!

      At some point, the CIA would get so desperate, they'd probably hire ex-Nazis and even try to invade Cuba!

      It would be a NIGHTMARE. Utter chaos.

      The poor NSA would probably birth themselves outside the reach of the law and in direct opposition to the Constitution, and noone would even notice for a good 60 years!

      I am sure am glad for WW2, and that none of these things came to pass!

      Luckily, the good people who planned and deliberately orchestrated WW I and II prevented this dystopia from occurring. Good for them, I say!

      We sure dodged some mighty bullets, there, I tell you!

      If it wasn't for WW II we'd probably be stuck with a "federal reserve" and endless war paid for by future generations.

      Man, that would suck!

    25. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like the lottery - we know deep down it's not going to happen to us, but just imagine what our lives would be like if it did!
      We fear crashing in planes much more than in cars, because the devastation and lack of control in a plane is so much more palpable. We ignore the maths of it, and see the big result as all consuming.

    26. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      What are your sources for people being killed by cops. I've been looking for some (sources) and haven't found any.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    27. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Infestation? The biggest problem we've had with them was when lots of them became cab drivers and refused to carry people with alcohol. The Somalis tended to come here because we accepted them, not because the climate was so much like home. They are not any sort of terrorism threat.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several dozen have been documented as leaving Minnesota to go fight with Daesh (aka ISIS). Though the biggest problem seems to be that they tend to congregate in certain areas and don't really try to integrate. Maybe in a few generations...

    29. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by mcswell · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's why the DHS later said there was no credible threat (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-usa-security-mall-idUSKBN0LQ0IY20150222). Granted, that contradicts what they said the day before. But if the government really wanted to instill terror, they wouldn't turn around and say not to worry.

    30. Re:visibility doesnt matter. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't know any sources, but considering that the above said eight times more likely than terrorism, that's still pretty damn low.

      Statistically speaking, I'll probably get killed by some woman driving a car while texting, eating, and applying makeup at the same time. But, to be fair, it probably will happen while I'm going to the mall.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  4. This won't end well by schwit1 · · Score: 2
    The feds will start using license plate readers at the mall so they can cross check vehicle owners with potential terrorists.

    All delivery vehicle drivers will have to have be fingerprinted and pass federal background checks.

    The TSA will be at all entrances doing bag checks.

    1. Re:This won't end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOA already has license plate readers at the entrances of all the ramps. Security already checks people coming in with large bags. And the mall already sucks. I went when it was new and it had all the cool stores. Now it is nothing but clothing stores and bad restaurants. It would be a waste of an attack. Most Minnesotans don't go there anymore.

    2. Re:This won't end well by Grishnakh · · Score: 3

      Now it is nothing but clothing stores and bad restaurants.

      What else has there ever been at a mall?

      Even back in the 80s when I was a kid, almost all the stores were clothes stores and fast-food restaurants ("food court"). The few exceptions were things like bookstores (like Waldenbooks), software/game stores (Electronics Boutique), arcades, Radio Shack, music/video stores, and tobacco stores. Book stores are mostly gone now, with Barnes and Noble being the sole survivor (besides odd little used book stores) (B&N sometimes does have mall locations though), most malls still have a game store (GameStop), some malls do have an arcade, Radio Shack just recently went under, music/video stores are mostly gone thanks to Netflix and Amazon and iTunes, and tobacco stores were forced out of malls ages ago.

      But the point is, I can't remember a time when malls weren't mostly clothing stores and bad restaurants.

    3. Re:This won't end well by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The TSA will be at all entrances doing bag checks.

      Getting into the mall will become such a hassle that almost nobody will go there; instead people will do most of their shopping on line and the rest at non-mall locations.

      Actually, that doesn't sound too bad.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:This won't end well by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, but now that the several things you named are gon, it is nothing but clothing stores and bad restaurants. Like OP said.

    5. Re:This won't end well by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not true, as I said in my comment. Most malls still have a game store (GameStop), and other stores remain. The mall nearest me has an arcade, and even a music/video store (I have no idea how they stay in business, but they do have a large shop). There's even a small celtic shop with all kinds of weird stuff. There's also a Radio Shack, but it closed in the last few weeks, unsurprisingly.

      In a nutshell, things haven't changed much in 25 years. I'd say the biggest difference is that no one smokes inside malls anymore, unlike in 1990. The other changes are that book stores are less common, and now there's frequently Apple Stores in malls.

    6. Re:This won't end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the sprawl has lost most of its appeal the last ten years or so.. it is not the destination for tourists, or locals, it once was. if they really wanted to get the attention of americans, the target would be amazon warehouses, not a shopping mall.

    7. Re:This won't end well by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Hey the MOA has the Lego store so it isn't all crappy overpriced food and clothing stores. That and don't forget about the amusement park.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  5. From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "Guns are banned on these premises."

    How about removing that rule as a first step? 'Gun free zones' are instant targets.

    1. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Show me that they get disproportionately attacked by terrorists and I'll take you seriously.

    2. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by DeadDecoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Somehow I doubt having overconfident civilians in a chaotic situation with guns will help anything. Surprise is a key element of terrorism, and well-intentioned people with guns may not have the opportunity to respond when something bad does happen. You're more likely to get injured civilians shot in the crossfire from friendly fire or just poor aim. Heck, it's hard enough getting police to use/refrain-from-using firearms appropriately in crowded areas.

    3. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was the gun free chocolate shop in gun free Australia attacked by one terrorist who didn't seem to have much trouble getting guns in gun free Australia. The elite Australian police took 16 hours to rescue the unarmed hostages - one doesn't simply rush into these things with overtime pay at stake.

      Quite frankly, you are the one who can't be taken seriously.

    4. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about removing that rule as a first step? 'Gun free zones' are instant targets.

      You might possibly have had a point if we were considering an armed robbery of the mall, although the fact that countries with strict gun control laws have murder rates that are a tiny fraction of the US suggests that the downsides far, far outweigh any small benefit.

      However I really don't understand how a civilian armed with a gun will stop a terrorist bomb. Having armed civilians wandering around a shopping mall shooting anyone with a backpack, bag or briefcase who looks "suspicious" frankly sounds like a far more terrifying prospect than a terrorist with a bomb and one likely to result in far more deaths. What we need is a plan to stop them from causing "terror", not one where you do it for them

    5. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why should it just be the terrorists shooting innocent civilians!

    6. Re: From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just about every gun story you have ever heard of

    7. Re: From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even the own article you mentions

      "This chart does not use the very latest data due to differences in how intentional homicide is defined and calculated for each country."

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

      When you pull out the wars it drops

    8. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are? Oops!

      I've got a few concealed pistol licenses which allow me to carry in a multitude of states and when traveling an often packing... doubly so when in MN and dragged to the MoA.

      Apparently I missed the required 187 square inch sign informing me of that prohibition. I'll have to look more carefully when next I'm there.

    9. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The parts of the US with the highest murder rates are also the parts with the strictest gun ownership laws. It's almost as if the entire situation is much more complicated than you make it out to be and depends on more than one variable.

    10. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol kills three times as many people in the US as firearms. They kill six times more in Europe than guns do in America. Yes, between an American gun and a German beer, the beer is six times deadlier. If we are trying to get rid of things on a cost-benefit basis, we should start with alcohol.

    11. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why are you limiting it to just terrorist attacks?

      At last check, with the exception of the Gabrielle Giffords's shooting... every single mass shooting in this country since the 1950's where there have been more than 3 deaths have taken place at a location where people were not able to carry a firearm.

      This applies not only to every single school K-12 shooting you can think of, but the Aurora theater prohibited firearms on their premises, Ft Hood only allowed MPs to consistently be armed, Virginia Tech prohibited students (even with CPLs) from carrying... the list goes on and on.

      Let me turn that Q around for you... when in the history of a world has a person hell-bent on doing evil, walked up to a door that said "Gun Free Zone" and said "Damn, I guess I'll have to find another place to create carnage?"

    12. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you're absolutely right, that the single variable of gun control is exactly how murders happen. The other night, I stole my neighbour's gun and he stopped killing people. It's really amazing how murderers consider if they are in a gun control area or not before they decided to kill people. It's in all the psychology textbooks. Not sure how the government misses such an obvious thing such as that. Maybe you should send it in to them? /s

    13. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be useful to see if and how the murder rate in the US is distributed... and see if perhaps in a country of more than 300 million there might be pockets which are the source of a disproportionate murder rate to?

      Or do you want to ignore the fact of the low murder rate in easy to legally get a gun Plano, Texas (.4 per 100,000) and the high murder rate in the hard to legally get a gun city of Detroit (54.6 per 100,000)? The numbers are striking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      In fact, oddly enough those places with the highest per-capita murder rates in the US tend to have rather strict gun laws full.

      Maybe, it's more than just laws about how easy or hard it is to get a firearm?

    14. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ill rather risk being injured in a 'civilian crossfire' then be executed by ISIS. Peoples that conceal carry do not have poor aim as you claim. They train more often then most police officers. Disarming the police and arming the citizens will result in less death because 1. better educated population and 2. less police abuse.

      The police is not a military occupation force, there is no reason why they should use weapon that civilians can't because they are themselves civilians. Either all of us have equal access to weapon or none of us does. Deal with it.

    15. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Calydor · · Score: 1

      It's almost like America is a country where violence is PG-13, but nudity is NC-17.

      Oh wait.

      Seriously though, the main problem in America seems to be a culture of glorifying violent actions in one way or another. From the classic examples of how geeks and nerds get treated in school by the 'cool' jocks to the frothing "MY GUN OR MY LIFE!" mentality some people exhibit I can only sit here and quietly shake my head at the world-leading super-power who wants to tell everyone else how to do things.

      To be quite honest, I'm not sure who's more scary. The extremists east of me ... or the ones west of me.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    16. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tiny fraction of the US suggests that the downsides far, far outweigh any small benefit.

      Look at bill of rights thru the lens of the idea that gov wants to fuck you over. The people who wrote it had first hand knowledge of it. They were the lawyers who defended against it and people who had had it done to them.

      One common way for the British and French to bully people was (still is) to 'find a weapon' while searching their house. You go from some dude selling some weed to a 'terrorist' PDQ. It just *sounds* bad and makes for being dramatic in front of a judge. It also gives the gov more laws to hold against you in the court of law. Also owning a gun was a way to 'show you were trying to bring down the crown'.

      Basically the bill of rights is not about giving people rights (we already have them). It is about stripping the legal tools of a bully away by making it clear you can not bully people in these ways.

      Think about it this way. You need a warrant to search a persons effects. Why? So they do not suddenly 'come up with a gun' and then beat a confession out of you. Then locking you up for 5 years until some judge gets around to sentencing you in a court of your accusers. All for speaking your mind about that douche bag in public office was protestant instead of catholic. These things happened, commonly. It is about stripping the nasty tools of a gov that is oppressive. Not giving you rights, you already by definition had them.

      Look thru the eyes of how someone on a power trip would mess you over if these did not exist. You need not imagine too much and open up some history books and see what happened. There are mountains of cases that you can look thru and see what happened.

      The current US gov is blatantly ignoring these laws. All in the name of 'safety' and 'children'. The political class does not do jack shit because the companies are handing them bucketloads of cash in bribes to keep the status quo. There is pretty much no one running who is saying this.

      You may personally think there is a 'small' benefit. Because you do not live in the era where they were created. They saw it as such a big deal it was #2. They held it out of the first round because they were not sure some states would sign it as they had to get over being bullies themselves.

    17. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gun nuts in the US don't really account for many murders, though. Certainly not more than the average person.

      Most murders in the US are gang and drug crime related. If you remove those from the count, the US murder rate isn't much higher than most other western countries. That's not too horrible for a country with endemic racial, social, and economic inequality issues.

    18. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about removing that rule as a first step? 'Gun free zones' are instant targets.

      You might possibly have had a point if we were considering an armed robbery of the mall, although the fact that countries with strict gun control laws have murder rates that are a tiny fraction of the US suggests that the downsides far, far outweigh any small benefit.

      However I really don't understand how a civilian armed with a gun will stop a terrorist bomb. Having armed civilians wandering around a shopping mall shooting anyone with a backpack, bag or briefcase who looks "suspicious" frankly sounds like a far more terrifying prospect than a terrorist with a bomb and one likely to result in far more deaths. What we need is a plan to stop them from causing "terror", not one where you do it for them

      Agreed. I love these gun nuts who envision these active shooter scenarios where Joe six pack with a glock guns down Hollywood Style a bunch of gunmen coming back home from Jihad in Syria. More than likely they will just get themselves killed or innocents killed. The best course of action is to run. There will rarely ever be a public place without multiple escape routes. Leave the shooting to the professional SWAT police force that Slashdot always decries.

    19. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Why are you limiting it to just terrorist attacks?

      At last check, with the exception of the Gabrielle Giffords's shooting... every single mass shooting in this country since the 1950's where there have been more than 3 deaths have taken place at a location where people were not able to carry a firearm.

      Well at the Gabrielle Gifford shooting, there was a good guy with a gun, and he had enough sense not to use it, because by the time he got there, they had the bad guy under control and a good guy was holding his gun.

      I don't see how that good guy scenario is supposed to play out. If the bad guy finds a crowd, he can get off 20 rounds, and kill a large number of people, before the good guy can do anything. So having good guys with guns can limit the damage to 10 victims. Unless the bad guy can get a bigger clip.

      So we're supposed to have malls full of handguns and automatic weapons, people taking handguns and automatic weapons into bars and parking lots, shoplifters with handguns and automatic weapons.

      Is there anyplace in the world like that, besides Afghanistan?

    20. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Declaw everyone is the solution to your percentages, right?

      Natural Rights don't come from government. One person, two people, or a million people cannot take my right to defend myself. (Well, they can, and they'd be wrong, and should expect consequences from their actions.)

    21. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Having armed civilians wandering around a shopping mall shooting anyone with a backpack, bag or briefcase who looks "suspicious" frankly sounds like a far more terrifying prospect than a terrorist with a bomb and one likely to result in far more deaths.

      How do you tell a gang of terrorists from a gang of good guys?

      What happens when three or four guys wearing keffeyas and carrying military rifles march into a shopping center? What if they don't wear keffeyas? What if they disguise themselves as good guys by wearing American flag and NRA patches?

    22. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Ft Hood only allowed MPs to consistently be armed

      So the place with well trained soldiers doesn't even allow them to be constantly armed and you want the general populace to carry guns everywhere?

      Save everybody some time, just shoot yourself.

    23. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Are the dead Americans and dead Germans on the cost or benefit side of that equation?

    24. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having armed civilians wandering around a shopping mall shooting anyone with a backpack, bag or briefcase who looks "suspicious" frankly sounds like a far more terrifying prospect than a terrorist with a bomb and one likely to result in far more deaths.

      Yes, of course you're right - that is the likely scenario. Just as the rise in "shall issue" permit laws and corresponding increase in legal carry across the U.S. has resulted in "wild west" conditions.

    25. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Maybe, it's more than just laws about how easy or hard it is to get a firearm?

      Undoubtedly it is - historically neither the US nor Europe had strict gun control laws and neither appeared to need them. However given that both now have a problem with violence in society it is undoubtedly the case that gun control limits the damage of that violence. Having strict gun control laws in one region is useless: it is trivially easy to go outside that region, purchase what you want, and return with it with almost zero chance of being caught. It's like a "dry country": everyone there just drives a few kilometres to the county next door to purchase alcohol.

      Restrictions on items only work when you implement them throughout a region where there is some border control e.g. at the national level. Once you have this there is a reasonable chance of being caught and/or the expense to avoid detection limits the number of criminal enterprises who can get around the law and so limits supply.

    26. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Sorry that should obviously be "dry county"!

    27. Re: From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Europe had the murder rate of America, they too would want to arm themselves. Please, look at the statistics. Chicago is the deadliest city in America, yet has the strictest gun laws, and is the home of Barak Obama, where Rahman Emmanuel is the mayor. Guns are not the problem; it's the culture of hate, entitlement, and superiority. I fear these people far more than "terrorists" 10,000 miles away.

    28. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restrictions on items only work when you implement them throughout a region where there is some border control e.g. at the national level. Once you have this there is a reasonable chance of being caught and/or the expense to avoid detection limits the number of criminal enterprises who can get around the law and so limits supply.

      How's that War on Drugs going? Cocaine, meth, ecstasy, etc. are illegal across all 50 states. Amazingly, they are still trivially easy to purchase.

      Ban guns nationwide, and you'd have the exact same scenario develop. Criminals would purchase guns at will, but the law abiding populace would be disarmed. Prohibition did not work, the war on drugs has not worked, so why the hell do you think unilateral disarmament by the citizens would work?

    29. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about automatic weapons?

      You already have many malls "full of handguns" all over the country, by the way. Not all of them post "gun free zone" signs, and those signs don't have the force of law in many states in any case, so many people simply ignore them.

      I understand the general mindset that leads towards gun control. But given that guns are out there anyway, under the current legal regime, how are "gun free zones" doing anything helpful at all?

    30. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are projecting.

      Lots of people capable of getting busy in a professional manner at a moments notice.

      The 'overconfident' people you speak of lose confidence quick when its time to get down. They go home and tell everyone they left theirs at home. doh~!

    31. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by nbauman · · Score: 1

      We now have as many guns as people in the U.S. Anyone who is determined can get a handgun or automatic weapon, legally or illegally. Someone who is intending to commit mass murder in a mall is not going to be deterred by the need to violate the gun laws, with a straw purchaser or otherwise.

      The NRA has been saying that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. When the bad guy starts shooting up a mall, one of the good guys with a gun in the mall is supposed to stop him.

      I'm saying that the NRA's argument won't work. Terrorists can surprise and outgun the good guys with the guns in the mall. If the good guys have handguns, the terrorists will bring automatic military weapons. Since the terrorists have the initiative, by the time the good guys realize what's going on and can respond, the terrorists can kill dozens or hundreds of victims.

      So what are the good guys supposed to do? Carry automatic military weapons every time they go to the mall?

      Laws will have only a limited effect on preventing a terrorist scenario like that. By saturating the country with guns, the NRA has a fait accompli. Terrorists can now get guns, and there's nothing effective that we can do to stop them. Good guys with guns can't stop them.

      So occasional terrorist attacks are the price we pay for the current expansive view of the Second Amendment.

    32. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      An automatic weapon is generally the one that is capable of firing bursts. Getting a full auto weapon in US legally is possible in some states, but prohibitively expensive (on the order of $15,000K for a Vietnam-era M16), and puts you under ATF scrutiny and on their registry. There was exactly one legal full auto gun used in a crime in the past several decades, and that one was by a cop.

      As far as terrorist attacks with firearms go, notice how it happened in France first - a place that's presumably pretty tight on their gun laws. Yet the guys who did it had no trouble sourcing a few full auto AKs (again, something pretty damn hard even in US) and even an RPG.

      And I don't think that anyone says that more guns in the hands of citizens is going to solve the problem. But it will reduce the impact compared to what we saw in Kenya, for example. There's a difference between slaughtering unarmed civilians, and getting into a firefight, even when the other side has less effective weapons.

    33. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they just carrying or are they brandishing? Are they indiscriminately shooting? Doesn't matter if they really are apple pie eating, baseball loving, NRA members. Brandishing/shooting at innocent civilians means they're the bad guys.

    34. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by nbauman · · Score: 1

      I was referring to Wayne LaPierre's statement.

      http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/...

      WAYNE LAPIERRE: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

      This has been rebutted by people who know far more about guns than I do:

      http://gawker.com/its-really-h...
      It's Really Hard to Be a Good Guy With a Gun
      Adam Weinstein
      6/10/14 4:20pm

      Fine. I leave it to you, the hypervigilant. Even though the statistics show mass shootings are on the rise, and not one has been stopped by armed good guys—armed civilian good guys. In fact, they've been shot more often than they've shot the baddies. Which is natural, since assault weapons are on the rise, and it's hard to conceal a weapon that can outshoot someone with a Bushmaster. I leave it to you, because I still puzzle in my mind over all the tactical difficulties posed by someone in civilian clothes carrying a gun during a shooting. (How do you telegraph your goodness to the cops and bystanders?)

      One of the things LaPierre blamed for the killings was the absence of "an active, national database of the mentally ill." Since he didn't take questions at his press conference, nobody was able to ask him who would decide who goes into the database, how they would decide, and whether they would then prevent people in the database from buying guns.

      One thing I do know about is the medical evidence.

      In fact, psychiatrists (the people who decide who is mentally ill) say that such laws would be useless. There was a debate about that in the Annals of Internal Medicine between a gun-owning doctor and a doctor who wanted to stop people with mental disease from buying guns. The gun-restricting doctor admitted he was wrong. Only a tiny minority of people with mental illness are a danger to anyone else. About 30% of the population over 65 has clinical depression. Does LaPierre want to take the guns away from 30% of the population over 65?

      In fact, the NRA has lobbied for laws that let people who were prevented from possessing guns, because they were convicted of violent crimes, appeal and have those convictions set aside again in a rubber-stamp procedure, so they could buy guns again. And several of those people have committed murders as a result. So LaPierre wants to give guns back to murderers to let them murder again.

      Unfortunately, as a story in Nature said last year, there is no good evidence on gun violence one way or the other. That's because the NRA lobbied congress to stop the Centers for Disease Control from doing gun-related research. That was in response to a study that found that people who bought guns were more likely to use them to commit suicide than to defend themselves. That study would be impossible today, because of the network of NRA-supported laws that prevent researchers from even getting information about guns.

      But in the absence of hard data, most doctors and scientists say that the cause of this level of gun violence is the widespread ownership of guns, and that if there were fewer guns in circulation, there would be fewer gun-related homicides and suicides. They also say it's politically impossible to do anything significant about it in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. So our NRA-protected gun access makes it impossible to stop terrorist attacks in malls. Anyone with basic gun skills can get a quick-firing gun and kill 20 people in a crowd before even a more-skilled gun owner can stop him. And if a group of terrorists plan a coordinated attack, they could kill hundreds. If a concealed-gun owner jumps into the fray, on the average he seems to do more harm than good.

    35. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also, good guys tend not to shoot unless they can get a clear shot, not wanting to hit innocent bystanders. Bad guys in these situations are there to shoot innocent bystanders. (At the Aurora shooting, how were moviegoers with guns supposed to stop the killer? He was next to the screen, and was reported to use some sort of smoke or fog, to be difficult to see. The murderer had a much better view of victims.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by nbauman · · Score: 1

      those signs don't have the force of law in many states in any case, so many people simply ignore them.

      I understand the general mindset that leads towards gun control. But given that guns are out there anyway, under the current legal regime, how are "gun free zones" doing anything helpful at all?

      Actually, we never answered your (reasonable) question.

      If I go into a bar in Texas or Colorado (which I did), I would feel more comfortable knowing that the good law-abiding guys aren't taking their guns inside. I don't even want the good guys to have guns when they get drunk and get into fights.

      If I were running the University of Colorado health services department, I would know that a gun owner with a gun is more likely to use it for suicide than for self-defense.

      If they want to have a rifle and hunting club, or ROTC, and keep their firearms locked up until they're used under supervision, fine. I've gone hunting myself.

      But I know that suicide is a high risk for college students, and the presence of a gun makes a suicide more successful.

    37. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I can understand the restrictions on firearms in environments where people are expected to get intoxicated or otherwise get their judgment impaired. Those kinds of restrictions are actually very old policy in most places they exist, dating back to 18th century, and I suspect that when they were enacted, it was very much experience-driven (i.e. that drunken shootouts were not uncommon, prompting such laws).

      But everywhere else, your sole argument seems to be, "people are more likely to use it for suicide". Which is extremely dubious, especially in case of places such as malls and the like, since 1) people wouldn't generally go there to commit suicide in any case, 2) even if they did, it doesn't really affect you in any different way compared to witnessing the same thing in the street, and 3) if they really want to do it, they'll just ignore the sign/law.

      As far as on-campus carry goes, it's really two unrelated things. One is for people who are basically just visiting the campus (this includes the students who don't permanently reside there) - in that scenario, it's not really different from a mall or any other public place, and it's still not at all clear why it requires a different policy from a busy street just outside it (or, for that matter, a small town 50 miles away). The other is for students residing on campus; but at that point you're talking about restrictions on possession in general, not just carry, and your suicide argument is really about possession as well.

    38. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      LaPierre is a hysterical moron. It's not worth paying attention to what he has to say, and it's not worth arguing with people who take him seriously, because they lack (or voluntarily surrendered) the ability to reason logically and surrendered themselves to emotions.

      I would like to point out, though, that the law prohibiting mentally ill from possessing firearms is already in place. The point that NRA keeps raising is that the checks are done on federal level, while the databases are compiled on state level in a very ad-hoc and inconsistent way. Basically, each state decides what goes on the list and when it gets to the feds. So the effect is that we have a law on the books that is supposedly helpful (I'm not familiar enough with the topic to judge whether it actually is or not, though I suspect it would be with the proper criteria), but the implementation of which is hindered in practice. It stands to reason that either the law needs to be repealed, or it needs to be fixed to do what it's meant to be doing.

      Regarding allowing people to buy guns after having convictions - I don't see a problem with this in principle. Rights are rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is there on the list alongside the right to free speech or to privacy and protection against warrantless searches. We don't refuse the latter to criminals after they have served their sentence, why should we refuse the former? (BTW, the right to vote is also one thing that is unfairly denied to such people, and that so many states still do it is a travesty).

      The bigger problem there is the justice system that's designed to be punitive in nature rather than corrective or deterrent - we release criminals on the streets knowing full well that they're still sociopathic, and we put people in prison for years for crimes that don't harm anyone, or that they wouldn't repeat anyway because they already understand the error of what they did (and after they spend those years in prison, they often turn into sociopaths). Fix that, so that sociopaths remain isolated so long as they remain a danger to society, and gun rights for felons becomes a non-issue.

      As far as terrorist attacks in malls go, it would seem that actual terrorists don't have a problem sourcing weapons for them even in countries where gun laws are fairly tight (like, well, France). In any case, in US, even if you were to make them all illegal overnight, you'd end up with all those millions of guns ending up on the black market, still readily available for those who intend to use them for some nefarious purpose. It would take not years, but literally decades for the circulation to scale down - a time scale that doesn't really mesh with the "here and now" nature of the terrorist threat.

      And, of course, terrorist attacks are usually not gun massacres. Explosives were, and remain, a best and most reliable way to wreck havoc on a large number of people at once for maximum shock value. In Nairobi mall attack, it took at least four (almost certainly more, initially they reported closer to a dozen attackers; 4 is how many they have arrested in the aftermath) guys with AKs, engaged for several hours, to kill 67 people. In Moscow metro bombings, it took two women with suicide belts a few seconds to kill 40. Much easier logistics, too - no training necessary for the bombers, and explosives are homemade stuff with nails and scraps of metal for a shrapnel load. Pretty much the only reason for them to use guns is when they want to fight off police (in e.g. hostage scenarios like Beslan, or simply when they want to make a statement of how inept the government forces are by holding them back, like in Nairobi).

    39. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that good guy scenario is supposed to play out. If the bad guy finds a crowd, he can get off 20 rounds, and kill a large number of people, before the good guy can do anything. So having good guys with guns can limit the damage to 10 victims. Unless the bad guy can get a bigger clip.

      I doubt detachable magazine capacity matters. One can always carry more magazines and with practice, changing one is not time consuming. Civilians on the other hand are unlikely to carry lots of magazines so standard capacity magazines matter more for them.

      Most spree shooters stop one way or another once armed resistance presents itself. Fortunately such incidents are rare despite what mass media would have us believe but this also means that it is difficult to determine what affect a good guy with a firearm will have versus the effect of law enforcement which is well known. There is an added complication in that if a civilian successfully stops a spree shooter, then there could be no mass shooting in which case they did not stop one. A similar issue crops up measuring DGUs (defensive gun uses) when it only counts if the suspect is shot or killed.

      The incident at the Clackamas Town Center comes to mind:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    40. Re:From Mall of America visitor rules: by Agripa · · Score: 1

      You might possibly have had a point if we were considering an armed robbery of the mall, although the fact that countries with strict gun control laws have murder rates [wikipedia.org] that are a tiny fraction of the US suggests that the downsides far, far outweigh any small benefit.

      The US also has a proportionally high rate of homicide with knives and blunt objects. How is it that our lack of gun prohibition raised those as well?

      One problem with the naive "murder rate" statistic is that different countries have different reporting criteria. Many countries only record a murder after disposition of the accused which artificially lowers their count in comparison to the US where it counts as a homicide no matter who kills them.

  6. The US gets back what it seeded by johanw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the US thinks it can bomb the shit out of civilians (only "collateral damage" in US terms) in many countries and support oppressive regimes without someday getting it back? Think again. When you vote for the bombing criminals, you become a legitimate target.

    However, these people help the US government just fine in getting support for the US government to control and repress their own population even more.

    1. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      When you vote for the bombing criminals, you become a legitimate target.

      Obama - Syria, Libya
      Bush II - Iraq, Afghanistan
      Clinton - Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Kosovo
      Bush I - Iraq

      Continue as far back as you choose. And then fold in France, Britain, Germany, etc, etc, etc.

      You really think this is a US only, and recent US only, issue? GMAFB.

    2. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Islamic history that they don't teach at Harvard: When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost British Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam: "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

    3. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by TWX · · Score: 1

      Every significant world power to ever exist has managed to do its' period's equivalent of bombing the shit out of civilians in colonial or poor places without too much in the way of repercussions. European powers subjugated large portions of Africa and Asia, and essentially conquered North and South America in some form or another. These Empires were brought down through internal strife, not from the outside. Even Rome, ultimately sacked by barbarians, fell from its peak due to internal pressures first before the Visigoths ever got within sight of its walls.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You forgot Iraq and Afghanistan for Obama.

      Or did you think we'd stopped bombing them back in 2009?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they land a bit closer? Seems Americans' awesome knowledge of geography isn't a new phenomenon.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got an alternative theory: The elite don't give a shit who dies. If it's Americans or foreigners, at home or overseas.

    7. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by swb · · Score: 2

      From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.

    8. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Islamic history that they don't teach at Harvard:

      When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost British Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. . . . In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves

      I know I'll probably be moderated into the dark depths for being a troll, but there is a certain irony in this history.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    9. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by johanw · · Score: 1

      "You really think this is a US only, and recent US only, issue?"

      No, of course not. Terrorist attacks are common in Iraq, some African countries, Pakistan and the middle east. But since the US is the country that with by far the most foreign aggression, it has to live with the fact that it becomes a high-profile target.

    10. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by johanw · · Score: 0

      " Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America"

      The most honest answer would probably have been that they were just pirates and attacked any ship they thought they could win from without serious retalliation.

    11. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why didn't they land a bit closer? Seems Americans' awesome knowledge of geography isn't a new phenomenon.

      Because if you read First Barbary War you learn that the expeditionary force consisted of 8 Marines and 500 local mercenaries. Given that the US navy was only about 7 years old at the time, I doubt that they had the ships available to transport all those people.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    12. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      " Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America"

      The most honest answer would probably have been that they were just pirates and attacked any ship they thought they could win from without serious retalliation.

      True. Religion is a convenient excuse, for some, to do whatever they want to do in order to get rich or gain power. In the case of the Dey, he underestimated the willingness of the United States to take action.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    13. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Also missing are Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/...

      Clearly his Peace Prize protects him from condemnation.

    14. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't forget. Just didn't go into full depth of all the targets. Syria is ongoing as of today.

    15. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      No, just that the US is the most high profile target.
      When stupid crap happens, and various countries beg for steel rain...who do they ask?

      Whatever. You can rail against the US govt, and/or the US voters for electing them.
      The exact same thing happens elsewhere. But many people seem to want to put the onus on the US and only the US.

    16. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the US thinks it can bomb the shit out of civilians (only "collateral damage" in US terms) ...

      US foriegn policy sucks, but so do most of the corrupt oppressive governments these enlightened Islamic countries have. The middle east and Islam have been the shit holes of civic leadership for a long time, only the name of the bullies change.

      Just put pig parts in glass jars at every shop entrance, you can even make them opaque. Get killed shooting up a mall get buried with pig parts, it raises the stakes.

    17. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. The U.S. is currently bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan as of today as well.

    18. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Not particularly. 1.5 million Europeans were also enslaved by Barbary pirates. Much like the rest of human history, slavery has been pretty much prevalent.

    19. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So American felt entitled to do business there, even at the risk of their own lives.... and then felt the need to force them follow the "American Way".
      Just like in every single war fought by the U.S.
      The History of the U.S. in a nutshell.

    20. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When you vote for the bombing criminals, you become a legitimate target."
      Hi there. Canadian here. I didn't vote for our current prime minister. I didn't vote to bomb anyone. Neither did my family. Neither did the majority of Canadians actually (3 major parties means a 40% vote can get a party a majority government). So please remember the next time you jihadists have a hankerin' for some ghost virgin tail, that the people you want to target in those shopping malls are more than likely not what you would consider legitimate targets. I'm pretty sure that killing innocent civilians is against the Koran, no matter how illiterate the interpreter is. Do you still get the virgins if you're covered in the blood of the innocent? If your imam says "yes", maybe it's time to switch mosques.

    21. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by radl33t · · Score: 1

      The US has 150+ military interventions to its name. On average more than 1 per year since the 1890s. Retaliation to empire building should not be unexpected.

    22. Re:The US gets back what it seeded by rhazz · · Score: 1

      I might be missing your point, but many countries, including America, had their own slaves back then too. Is enslaving "because you're not Muslim" a worse excuse than "because you're not white"? People enslaved others for personal gain, and religion/race was just the bullshit justification so they didn't have to feel bad about it.

  7. Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect more black kids to be shot...

  8. Culture Jamming by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These terrorist groups have slowly realized that the the biggest damage is not from bombs or airplanes, it is the self-inflicted damage that results. The DHS apparatus, multiple foreign wars and entanglements, loss of liberties, police militarization, "papieren, bitte" and a collective nervous breakdown are draining away the treasure and economic and social vitality of the USA. This is achieved at no cost beyond posting a video on the internet, and beheading any Americans who are stupid enough to visit them.

    This is as asymmetric as warfare can get. You may say things are ok in America, but in reality it could have been much, much better..

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Culture Jamming by sjames · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. The terrorists are Bugs Bunny and we are Yosemite Sam.

  9. Can this be fixed with technology? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen a joke, maybe on a t-shirt, along the lines of "Every day a vegan skips meat, I'll eat three extra burgers." It's interesting because it exposes the question of whether the vegan is really trying to minimize animal deaths, or just seeks personal sanctity.

    I wonder if a similar thing could be made with a Koran-burning machine. The machine is configured so that every time the internet has a new message from Islamicists, the machine automatically dips a Koran in pig blood, burns it, posts the video on YouTube, and sends a Tweet giving credit to the Islamicists who triggered that action.

    1. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      I wonder if a similar thing could be made with a Koran-burning machine. The machine is configured so that every time the internet has a new message from Islamicists, the machine automatically dips a Koran in pig blood, burns it, posts the video on YouTube, and sends a Tweet giving credit to the Islamicists who triggered that action.

      So your solution to extremists boasting about what they dream they could do, is to do something tangible that will piss off said extremists and give them grounds to point the finger at the west and say "See, they are a bunch of infidels that deserve what they get!". Which will do no less more than to push more people into extremism.

      Have you ever heard of a positive feedback loop? Because that is what you are suggesting for "solving" the problem of terrorists.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by aliquis · · Score: 2

      As a vegan myself I just accept that bought food sources will kill so maybe that argument doesn't hold and moral and ideas are subjective.

      So I don't accept the notation that "this is good and that is bad" as a scientific / complete truth.

      However I don't feel responsible for whatever stupid others participate in and I won't take responsibility for whatever someone else do regardless of what they claim was the reason for it and I'm claimed to be it.

    3. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by TWX · · Score: 1

      There are no large gatherings of organized Vegans with dogma proclaiming that violating Vegan dietary principles is an affront to God, such that ordinary Vegetarians would be moved to radical Veganism simply because of the excess consumption of animal-derived products.

      On the other hand, there are lots of people that are only nominally religious until the religion that they only barely believe in and participate with is visibly threatened or demeaned, then they go off the deep end in its defense.

      You do not use their religion against the faceless masses. IF you chose to use religion against someone, it has to be personal, and even then, you have to be very careful, such that your choice doesn't motivate others to rally to the cause of the person whom you used it against. If you want to compare this to warfare, you must use it tactically, not strategically.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by khasim · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, there are lots of people that are only nominally religious until the religion that they only barely believe in and participate with is visibly threatened or demeaned, then they go off the deep end in its defense.

      Kind of ...

      But more like the non-crazies suddenly have to explain WHY the crazies are wrong when we are doing exactly what the crazies are claiming. So the crazies get louder while everyone else gets quieter.

      As in the GP post. And it is sad that it was mod'ed to +5.

      Pigs are NOT magical animals. Muslims do NOT believe that pigs are magical animals. So there is NOTHING that smearing a Koran with pig blood would accomplish EXCEPT showing that you are actively trying to be offensive to the non-crazies WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING them.

      IF you chose to use religion against someone, it has to be personal, and even then, you have to be very careful, such that your choice doesn't motivate others to rally to the cause of the person whom you used it against.

      Exactly. And the problem is that most of the crazies don't even care about their own religion. The same with the crazies in any religion. The religion is an excuse for them to associate themselves with other people. Otherwise they are just lone crazies.

      Deal with them as lone crazies.

      Do not try to piss off the people they CLAIM to represent. They don't represent anyone except themselves.

    5. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could have a similar scheme for terrorists: Cremate them, and scatter the ashes in pig shit.

    6. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and give them grounds to point the finger at the west and say "See, they are a bunch of infidels that deserve what they get!".

      Eating pork, drinking alcohol, not praying to Allah five times a day and allowing my wife to drive and not cover her face head while I draw a cartoon about Jesus, Moses and Mohammed walking into a bar is plenty enough reason for them already.

      When you are dealing with hyper-sensitive people you have two choices:
      1) Change your entire lifestyle so as to walk around on egg shells and hope and pray they don't get offended, or
      2) Live your life normally and require them to develop a thicker skin.

      There was a time in this country where #2 was actually the norm, alas people like you however keep trying to push us harder and harder towards #1.

      But then, it's easy for me to say that... I am an adult, I simply do not get offended regardless of what someone says about me or something that I care about. It's part of being an adult.

      Know what we call people who freak out at every little thing?

      Children... and Democrats... but mostly children.

    7. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by TWX · · Score: 2

      That's something that bothered me about how fighting terrorism, with things like holding accused persons without trial at Guantanamo Bay and allegedly other sites, is that it seems to give importance to the terrorists beyond normal criminals. As far as I'm concerned, if we have this culture that's a form of, "welcome to the machine", let the machine take these accused, convict them, and sentence them like any other mostly anonymous criminal. Let the machine chew them up and spit them out like it does everyone else. Downplay their crimes to where they're just crimes. People like Osama bin Laden aren't Hitler, they're warlords, with a kernel possible actual reason and grievance surrounded by loads of crazy interpretations as to how to redress such grievances. Pumping them up to Hitler/Pol Pot/Stalin/Mao level actually gives them power, as opposed to downplaying it or diminishing it.

      The terrorists win when we elevate them to being an equal enemy. We lose 10x more people annually to automobile accidents than we do to terrorism in the United States; other than the actual September 11, 2001 attacks we lose more people to GM faulty ignition switches than we have to terrorism.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      "See, they are a bunch of infidels that deserve what they get!"

      So, more of the same then? oh noes!

      What these people say doesn't bother me in the least. But then, I didn't allow myself to be made into a self-loathing, oikophobic 'murica hater that quails in despair everytime some hate-filled atavist islamo-nazi — or one of their apologists — says something mean about me.

      Harden the fuck up.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    9. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/bought/both/g

      The argument being "killing animals for food is bad" because I'm killing plants anyway or their seeds or whatever and what say one is worse than the other?

      And "me" being claimed for being the reason.

    10. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you simply stop dealing with them, ignore them and let them live their lives?

    11. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Know what we call people who freak out at every little thing?

      I usually call her "honey."

    12. Re:Can this be fixed with technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Know what we call people who freak out at every little thing?

      Children... and Democrats... but mostly children.

      Your slip is showing. That little jab at dems indicates that the terrorists maybe got to you a bit, too. You know you're above that; you can do better.

  10. London has malls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I learned something new. I thought they had rows of small shops along their main streets. I guess I've been watching too many old British TV shows and movies. lol

    1. Re:London has malls? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It has both. It also has large shops. Oxford Street has shops in a range of sizes.

    2. Re:London has malls? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A few miles north of the Mall of America, I like to observe all the small shops when driving on commercial streets. You can have both.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. Re:Might wake some people up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sea kelp.

  12. Syrian refugees by myid · · Score: 2

    Meanwhile, President Obama and the State Department are trying to bring Syrian refugees into the US. Some US lawmakers and government officials are concerned that members of ISIS might slip into the US, along with genuine refugees. For example,

    "You have to have information to vet,” FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach, said in a Feb. 11 House homeland security hearing. “Databases don't [have] the information on those individuals, and that's the concern.”

  13. Do armed Americans factor into terror planning? by swb · · Score: 1

    I'm not asking the question whether armed civilians thwart crime generally; that's a different debate with evidence posited on both sides.

    I'm wondering if the people who might plan an attack similar to the one at the Kenyan mall or the hotel in India and consider such an assault in the US take into consideration any risks associated with armed Americans, either carry permit holders or even those who carry illegally.

    There's the risk of the assault being cut short or otherwise failing because the attackers themselves come under fire from armed civilians as well as the potential publicity failure of "armed citizens kill terrorists, stop attack" type headlines which would potentially demonstrate that against American citizens, terrorists are weaker than Americans.

    I would suspect that such risks would be downplayed -- a terrorist event could be considered a "success" just from emptying an AK magazine into a crowd at a mall, even if the attacker(s) were killed immediately after opening fire. Plus there may be the belief that at best they would be up against unskilled persons who were outgunned (handguns versus rifles).

    1. Re:Do armed Americans factor into terror planning? by aliquis · · Score: 2

      a terrorist event could be considered a "success" just from emptying an AK magazine into a crowd at a mall, even if the attacker(s) were killed immediately after opening fire.

      Denmark:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      Such fucking stupidity it's allowed into Europe.

      In the case of France as I've understood it there was no escape plan. Of course there will be others with similar ideas who will still think it was a success and good.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

      Don't understand why we have to destroy our countries. Guess the good part which can come from it is that more of them actually like the freedom and rather than the agenda they want to pull that "west is struggling to uphold its values" or whatever it will be the Islamic majority countries which will lose their fundamentalistic ways and go secular and humane or whatever.

      Who knows.

      Crap.

  14. Terry Gilliam is a prophet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are living in Brazil.

    The movie is dated but poignant. I recommend it to everyone over the age of 12.

  15. Why hasn't it happened already? by swb · · Score: 2

    I wonder why it hasn't happened already. Despite the panopticon and run of the mill police misbehavior, America still seems like a place where you can move around pretty freely without many obstacles.

    Obtaining weapons isn't hard and I doubt there is a terror group out there worth their jihad who wouldn't also know how to convert a semi-automatic-only assault rifle into full auto capable fire, either via either illegal trigger group replacement or modification.

    Crowd events are frequent and places like malls are often crowded, providing ample targets for assaults on civilians. Many significant industrial sites like oil refineries or power plants aren't well guarded (nuclear plants may be an exception) and even if a handful of key infrastructures like bridges and tunnels are well guarded, many aren't.

    It just doesn't seem like there would be many barriers, require that much skill or planning to do what they have threatened. In terms of terror, the payoff seems immense.

    So why hasn't it happened? Is the panopticon that good? Are they just burying all the stories of thwarted attempts?

    1. Re: Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened in Tom Clancy book as I recall.

      Of course, in his version,it just justified a bunch of gungho action stars to sink the Red October again.

    2. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider what America's reaction to 9/11 has meant for Muslims everywhere in the world, and imagine how much worse it would be if there were another attack on that scale. Now throw in Americans' well-known love of guns and hatred of Muslims, and the hesitation starts to make sense.

    3. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      The payoff isn't immense, however. If they do blow up a mall, then you risk getting the Wrath of the Great Military Industrial Complex upon your head. We can stomp ISIS into the ground should we be so inclined - but we're not so inclined.

      If ISIS just rattles scimitars it's a no-cost way to get effective propaganda. Blowing things up entails real risks of escalations. Just ask Japan how well Pearl Harbor worked out for them in the long run.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can stomp ISIS into the ground should we be so inclined - but we're not so inclined.

      No, we can't. We have no such capability.

      The problem is that ISIS is not a uniformed, traditional military force. It's supported by the cities it rules over. It's one and the same with the local population of Sunnis. The only way you're going to stomp ISIS into the ground is to level Sunni cities, and kill ALL the people living in them. The west is not willing to do that.

    5. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      "Yes we can!" to borrow an phrase from our freckless leader. I am not saying we should do that but we could stomp out ISIS if we wanted.

      What we should do and I think would be a far far better approach would be to END our efforts in the middle east and implement real effective boarder security; where by persons DO NOT illegally enter the country successfully. Additionally implement intensified screenings with background checks and the closing of visa loop holes for people who wish to visit and for Americans returning from hot zones. All of that could probably be implemented for a tiny fraction of the of the on going costs of middle eastern conflicts.

      If we however wanted to stop out ISIS we could recognize the problem for the Islamic threat that is, and take the approach the Russians did and the European colonial empires before them. Make everyone swear fealty to us and demand they control their people according to the laws our local military governor institutes. When the rules are broken either the local population turns over the responsible parties quickly or brutal and indiscriminate punitive action is implement instead. Where we drop a daisy-cutter on a population center, raise a holy site etc. This is exactly how the non failed states operate over there, the local dictator maintains a sufficient level of fear such that when anyone one discovers anyone else even thinking of resisting, turns them in to avoid everyone's lives being upended or just ended. Mind you this would put us on the same moral and ethical plane as Gaddafi, Saddam, al-Assad, and their ilk but its certainly "do-able" I think we are better than that, I really hope we are, but I do think we *could* do it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by cfsops · · Score: 1

      No, we can't. We have no such capability.
      ...
      The only way you're going to stomp ISIS into the ground is to level Sunni cities, and kill ALL the people living in them. The west is not willing to do that.

      The ability to accomplish a task has nothing to do with a willingness to accomplish a task.

    7. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell the Boston bombing victims that nothing like this has happened, or the victims at Fort Hood. This stuff happens in Europe all the time.

      Some Muslim clergy talks some crazy into some such attack. Then the media, and the politicians, fall all over themselves to tell the public that the attack has nothing to do with Islam. Then the big story will be that Muslims fear a backlash - as if the Muslims are the victims, and not the aggressors.

      We need to stop the PC bullshit. Pull our heads out of our asses, and see Islam for what it is.

    8. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I am not saying we should do that but we could stomp out ISIS if we wanted.

      No, we can't. There is no way in hell western voters would stand for genocide. Even if it were really necessary. We just don't have the stomach for that. Voters now get upset any time there's civilian casualties, and demand surgically precise military operations.

      a far far better approach would be to END our efforts in the middle east and implement real effective boarder security; where by persons DO NOT illegally enter the country successfully.

      Two problems: we need the oil the ME provides (since we're not developing EVs fast enough and we won't build SkyTran), and securing borders isn't that easy. The US shares a ridiculously long border with Mexico, over a thousand miles long. And most of our population is against militarizing that border. There's also the Canadian border which is even longer and totally unguarded, though it's not that easy to sneak into Canada from outside North America. Europe has similar problems; it just isn't that easy to keep people out. The eastern borders aren't exactly well-guarded, and it isn't that hard to come over on a boat.

      Finally, why do people who want better border security seem to almost never know how to spell "border"?

      Mind you this would put us on the same moral and ethical plane as Gaddafi, Saddam, al-Assad, and their ilk but its certainly "do-able" I think we are better than that,

      We (rightfully) got upset about the way our soldiers acted in Abu Ghraib, and many of us are still upset about what happened in Gitmo, because we're fundamentally opposed to torture. That's small peas compared to bombing population centers with MOABs. There's no way you're going to get American citizens to agree to this kind of thing.

      As far as I can tell from my armchair, the best strategy is containment and assistance of ISIS's foes. We should definitely take a very hard line against anyone who goes there and then changes their mind and wants to come home, and supporting the Kurds seems like a very reasonable and inexpensive thing to do. ISIS seems to be causing a lot of unity among everyone else in the region, so this may be a blessing in disguise; maybe we could turn Iran back into an ally.

    9. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's supported by the cities it rules over.

      Actually, they ran anyone who didn't support them out of town and took all their stuff, but I guess it ends up the same way in that you either support them or flee with nothing. You might also get burned to death or beheaded, as with that pilot and that group of Christians.

    10. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      So why hasn't it happened? Is the panopticon that good? Are they just burying all the stories of thwarted attempts?

      I'd go with another theory -- there are very, very few people inside the USA who want to be terrorists (and even fewer with the required combination of skills and ruthlessness to actually pull off a successful act of terrorism).

      The reason why: If you're living in a hopelessly dysfunctional third-world hellhole, you don't have a lot to lose, so you may well just say "screw it" and throw in your lot with the local terrorist militia, in the hopes that shaking things up enough might somehow improve things. If you're inside the USA, on the other hand, your quality of life is (or at least, can be) much higher, so you'll be less tempted to throw all that away for the glory of jihad.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Two problems: we need the oil the ME provides

      No. We really don't. The Middle East is not nearly as significant as it was in the early '70s.

    12. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well if you cut out ME oil, you're going to have to get oil from Russia. Europe gets most of its oil from the ME.

    13. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by swb · · Score: 1

      It sounds reasonable, but I don't find it compelling. One of the biggest trends anymore is the "home grown" terrorist, the one who who commits act of violence in his home country.

      I'm still puzzled why so many apparently soft targets haven't been hit, at least once.

      It could just be that the "threat" is greatly overstated.

    14. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'd go with another theory -- there are very, very few people inside the USA who want to be terrorists (and even fewer with the required combination of skills and ruthlessness to actually pull off a successful act of terrorism).

      With a few rather notable exceptions, performed by the religion of peace. As long as we completely ignore those, hey - you're 100 percent correct!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or Canada, or South America, or the U.S. or Norway, or.....

      If it is a problem for Europe, let Europe spend the bux and deal with the heartburn. Most of Europe made it quite clear they don't want us involved anyway.

    16. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The US's economy is strongly linked to Europe's. If Europe's economy goes down the tubes, so does ours.

    17. Re: Why hasn't it happened already? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Again? They didn't sink it the first time.

      (Sorry, spoiler alert, etc)

    18. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean they can't do the spending for their own benefit.

    19. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by swb · · Score: 1

      Well, western voters haven't been sufficiently motivated to get behind the kind of violence the grandparent alluded to. If a significant population center was hit by a suitcase nuke, I have complete faith that the American populace would demand nothing short of total victory. It wouldn't be labeled genocide and even white middle aged professors who said otherwise would probably be risking a lynching.

      The U.S. would just apply maximal, scorched earth total warfare which would probably be on Dresden scales of brutality. We've done it before and half of it targeted white people. Add in a difference in race and how sympathetic do you think the American public will be about a bunch of Arabs getting their village burned and shot in the street? And how hard do you think it will be to find legions of Appalachian crackers willing to do it?

      The good news is that you wouldn't actually have to commit active genocide. Once you've destroyed a couple of cities and their populstions and bombarded the rest you really can break their will to fight and get the population to submit. This has been demonstrated since before the Classical period. This is EXACTLY how you defeat an enemy and conquer him.

    20. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no one cares about your fuking country? It's not that difficult to understand, really.
      Let them live their lives, let them kill one each other. How is it YOUR, as in, americans, business at all?
      Why doesn't the U.S. simply stop trying to impose their shit on everyone else?

    21. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a sizeable minority of "western" voters right now who would vote to have all muslims thrown out of their countries regardless of whether they themselves commited any terrorist acts. There is a sizeable minority of that minority who would vote to nuke the muslim world.

      If there was in fact a large jihadi attack resulting in significant (say hundreds) of casualties, there would be a military response for sure.
      If there was a large attack resulting in the loss of high tens of thousands there could indeed be calls for nukes to be used.

    22. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like those home grown clowns who attempted to attack Glasgow Airport? Didn't work out too well.

    23. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not saying we should do that but we could stomp out ISIS if we wanted.

      No, we can't. There is no way in hell western voters would stand for genocide.

      You're conflating capability with desire. We have the capability to nuke everyone on Earth. We desire not to do this.

    24. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Two problems: we need the oil the ME provides (since we're not developing EVs fast enough and we won't build SkyTran),

      Things have changed in the past 5 years. Western Europe might need the oil the Middle East provides (or alternatively, Russia, if you want to pick alternate geopolitical foes)... but if I recall correctly, the US was the world's #1 oil producer in 2014. There has some retrenchment since November, due to lower prices and oversupply, but it's nothing that couldn't be reversed in a real crisis.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    25. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The US is also the #1 oil consumer; it uses all it produces, and then imports more from Canada and Mexico to make up for the shortfall. Europe is the same way, only worse; they get some domestically (Norway), but then they have to import the rest.

    26. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      see Islam for what it is

      It's the same thing every other religion is. A bunch of stories and directives designed to provide justification for a particular way of life. ISIS is a just product of the environment it was cultivated in. I wonder what would happen in the US if a foreign country came in and destroyed the government every decade or so for the sake of corporate interests.

    27. Re:Why hasn't it happened already? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that a lot of terrorists live comfortably and are well-educated. The Middle East has its bad spots, but people don't necessarily live that badly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Rapid response security teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big malls like Mall of America already have rapid response security teams made up of former SWAT and military. They're well armed, armored, and trained. They're just usually not visible since they would be off-putting to customers.

    1. Re:Rapid response security teams by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Is that you Gecko45?

  17. It's time to stop acting PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's time to turn these fuckers' homeland into a glass land. The rest of the world has put up with their bullshit long enough.

    Other countries are ready to do it. The US needs to lead and get it done NOW.

  18. Baedeker Blitz by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    Made me think of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  19. mall in Ohio evacuated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was here when they evacuated. Hope it's not related.

    http://m.19actionnews.com/19actionnews/db_330498/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=o8DTK7dm

  20. Another al-Shabaab mall attack... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    The Westgate mall attack wasn't a bomb. It was armed gunmen, and 67 people ended up dead with over 175 wounded.

    1. Re:Another al-Shabaab mall attack... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Four gunmen with AK-47s, who presumably know each other and what they intend to do, are going to be a real difficult target for individual, uncoordinated, people with handguns who really don't want to hit innocent bystanders.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Malala Yousafzai by westlake · · Score: 2

    legitimate terrorist attacks have no source, no warnings, are unpredictable and incur large-scale casualties.

    There are few things which irritate me more than the geek who thinks he has won his argument by quoting from a dictionary of his own invention or an etiquette guide like Emily Post.

    That is what makes "legitimate" the key word here.

    In real life, terrorists often telegraph their attacks, make a point of being easily identifiable by their victims. and choose targets both great and small.

    Malala: The girl who was shot for going to school

  22. Meanwhile by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Tiffany rumored to be forming a new flash mob group called "Al-Shama-lama-ding-dong"

  23. Mall by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    For you kids, a "mall" is a place where they have stores. Think amazon.com except you have to drive to it, and they never actually have what you want there. The concept might have been more successful if it wasn't for that last bit.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  24. Looks Manufactured By DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This looks to be a "home grown" "event" manufactured by DHS to secure funding by Congress.

    SDHS Johnson knows if he and DHS are responsible for manufacturing the video, leading to his appearance on the Sunday Talking Head Shows and no one in the Obama Admin. will stand against him, not at least after the 2016 election.

    SDHS knows that DHS is illegal terror agency of the US Fed and that is what scares the shit out of him.

    To justify the DHS existence and his, he needs a real terror event, so DHS comes to its own rescue.

    Very convient.

    PS. ISIL/ISIS is making too many enemies out of the other countries that surround it and those countries are legitimately at war with ISIL/ISIS. We do not need Johnson and his DHS to terrorize USA any longer.

  25. Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    I hear that such folks exist, but they seem to be as rare as a transsexual US Navy SEAL riding a unicorn at the front of a 4th of July parade. Muslims will not listen to goddamned Methodists from Ohio. They will only listen to other Muslims.

    Unless other Muslims take to the streets and condemn these threats and actions from the Islamic State . . . ain't nothing gonna happen!

    So, if you are Muslim, will you tolerate these extremists in you Mosque . . . ? As long as that problem isn't solved, the rest of us will live in fear of you.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re: Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's your transexual (former) Navy SEAL
          Google "Kristen Beck".

    2. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every Muslim I've ever met has been a moderate Muslim, and there have been plenty of cases of Muslims decrying the acts of those committing acts of terror in the name of their religion.

      Should you even be on Slashdot, anyway? Shouldn't you be out denouncing the likes of Dennis Marx, Aaron Ybarra and Jerad and Amanda Miller?

    3. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Do christians listen to other christians who condemn? Look at the history of slavery in the south. Did it end because the menonites and some catholics told the other christians it was wrong?

    4. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for moderate Muslims... in any religious group with extremists, guess who ends up being first on the menu? Yep, the moderates. The reason why this argument "where are the moderate Muslims?" is fallacious is the same reason the question, "where are the moderate Germans during 1940?" is... they would get killed.

    5. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Do christians listen to other christians who condemn?

      Well, Christians don't let other extremist terrorists hang out in their houses of worship. If the creeps from the Westboro Baptist Church showed up at any Christian church that I know showed up, they would be politely ask by the pastor to "take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut". In contrast, Muslim Mosques actively encourage extremists and terrorists to make themselves at home.

      Have you been to a mall lately? Remember your Muslim Pledge of Allegiance . . . that is your "get out of jail free" card. Anyone else will be slaughtered.

      Look at the history of slavery in the south.

      Yes, that's gone now, isn't it? Let's look at the slavery in the Islamic State. Twelve year old girls sold as sex slaves, because that's the what's written in the Koran, and what the Prophet [sic] wants.

      Did it end because the menonites and some catholics told the other christians it was wrong?

      No, it ended because a lot of folks, regardless of their religions agreed that slavery was evil, and was worth fighting for to end.

      Look at Muslims today. They couldn't even muster themselves to lift a finger against the Islamic State . . . until Obama twisted their arm.

      Muslims would like to live in the prosperous land of a liberal democracy. But they want the government of a Medieval Caliphate.

      It's not going to work with Muslims living with non-Muslims.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm sorry your parents raised such a hate filled person.
      Westboro is full of hate, but they aren't terrorists. They stay within the constraints of the law and tolerence of them is a good canary for our democracy.

      The fact that you think you can "politely" ask someone to "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut" tells me how far you are from being a true follower of christ, whether you mis-identify yourself as a christian or not. Your brand of christianity is well short of ISIS's brand of muslim, but left to your own devices, I'm sure you'd get there.

    7. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The Islamic State is just a plane ride away from you . . . book now!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Oh, and by the way, I am left handed. Google your own religion to see what they think about that. When visiting Egypt on a business trip, I was told not to use my left hand . . . otherwise, I would probably be killed.

      Who is doing the killing here? Am I standing in an airport security line because of Muslims? Or Methodists in Ohio . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by mrops · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a muslim, I do always condemn them.

      Unfortunately, your logic is flawed, I live in North America, these people are killing muslims in their own countries. Those children that died when Taliban carried an attach on Peshawar school were all muslim's.

      So its idiotic to think that these extremist will listen to me, who lives in Canada, shops in these malls and hell, condemn them every opportunity I get.

      As a side note, heard an interview from a Taleban lunatic recently, you may not know, but he sounded like G.W.Bush, literally saying that you are either a Taleban or against them, which means you (me) a valid target.

      So please, rest of muslim's are already with any other sane person and condemn them, vocally too. But you don't go out condemning every lunatic christian, nor will I, I have a 9-5 job, kids to look after. Medical appointments to meet and car to service. When was the last time you went to a street to protest, I never have, likely won't either. Those who understand this, I appreciate them, those who won't, I don't care.

    10. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Your standing in an airport security line because of money'ed interests who want to sell security theater. That left hand thing is a holdover from less clean times. Your basically rubbing shit on them in their eyes, since that's your wiping hand. It's rude in their culture. I doubt you would be killed.

      Fun Fact, I'm catholic.

    11. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Your basically rubbing shit on them in their eyes, since that's your wiping hand.

      Listen, because Muslims don't have the intelligence to use toilet paper is not my problem. That is theirs. Muslim countries are stuck in the Middle Ages.

      It's rude in their culture.

      Well, sorry for them, but I can't write with my right hand. So your Mohammed can kiss my fucking hairy ass. Or I cannot go to your Islam countries, to try to help out with their abysmal cultures.

      I doubt you would be killed..

      Tell that to the folks shopping at a mall in America.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    12. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a muslim, I do always condemn them.

      *Yawn* . . . but in your next sentence, you will claim that it is all the fault of the liberal western nations.

      ,I live in North America

      Well, do the world a favor . . . and go home! To your Muslim world.

      these people are killing muslims in their own countries.

      Muslims hate everyone. When they aren't killing innocent foreigners, they are killing each other. They hate everyone. Even themselves. See the Shiite Sunni divide to see what I mean.

      There is an an old Arabic saying . . . I fight against my brother . . . but my brother and I fight against other kids in my neighborhood. We fight with kids in our neighborhood against other kids in other neighborhoods. Etc, etc, etc.

      Those children that died when Taliban carried an attach on Peshawar school were all muslim's.

      See above, to see why Muslims will just kill anyone, just for fun, because it says so in the Koran.

      So its idiotic to think that these extremist will listen to me, who lives in Canada, shops in these malls and hell, condemn them every opportunity I get.

      Well, you are living in a liberal democracy that is tolerant for everyone. I guess you missed the attacks by Muslim in Ottawa

      I have a 9-5 job

      So your employer should be charged with aiding and abetting Muslim terrorists.

      kids to look after.

      Have you fitted your kids with suicide belts yet?

      When was the last time you went to a street to protest, I never have, likely won't either. Those who understand this, I appreciate them, those who won't, I don't care.

      Which is why we should tell Muslims, like Nazis to go home!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    13. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a number of Muslims. I like most of them a great deal, and the idea that one of them would become violent or attempt to force their religion on others is ridiculous. Some of the most anti-religious people I know are Muslims too - they don't talk about it much but they don't want to have anything to do with it. There are nuts everywhere, and in every creed. Overwhelmingly people are decent.

    14. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      No, but if I remember my history, the abolitionist movement stared among the Christians in the North. They weren't Menonites or Catholics, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.

    15. Re:Where are all the "moderate" Muslims? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I'm just fishing in this troll hole...

      Christians object to all sorts of things. You can't lump them all together. That's my point. Muslims are just as fractured.

  26. Don't listen to them by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    It's a ruse.

    If ISIS really planned to attack the MOA, why would they give the authorities advance notice? Their primary weapon is FEAR, and they want to use FEAR to prevent people going to the MALL to spend money, thus affecting commerce and the economy. Their rallying cry is "death to America". You don't accomplish that by blowing up America one mall at a time. That would never be effective.

    The 9-11 attack was not on a tourist location. it was on the WTC, which is a center of commerce. They don't need to blow up the malls, just threaten to and the shoppers will stop coming.

    I would call their bluff, and go shopping anyway. Besides, the Mall of America has an amusement park in it.

    1. Re:Don't listen to them by gtall · · Score: 1

      Al-Shabab is not ISIS, last we heard, they claimed to be al-Qaeda...unless I've missed the memo switching their allegiance. One thing I think we need to keep in mind is the Mid-East, North Africa, and S. Asia capacity for talking out of their ass..."We gonna kill y'all with 1000 deaths!!!"...maybe they're from Texas. Most likely this is simply a call for attention, their mothers dropped them on their heads during their formative years and now Western hand-ringers are supposed to let them know they are still wanted.

  27. the beginning of the end? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    Targeting a mall for a mass shooting or bombing would cause a big reaction, but if a video surfaces of soccer mom kidnapped and beheaded inside the United States all hell will break loose. 9/11, bombings, mass shootings...those are all terrible but they're a little more abstract psychologically because they affect a group of random people. The idea that a van could pull up next to you while walking the dog on the other hand is something that you might find difficult to stop thinking about. They've tried this in other countries (Australia, I think?), so unless there's some radical shift in sentiment (or existence) among terrorist groups it's only a matter of time.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  28. Bring it. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I'm going to the Mall today.
    I'll be there from about 4pm until about 8.

    See you there, bitches.

    --
    -Styopa
  29. Good by uassholes · · Score: 1

    There aren't enough shishkabob joints in malls, nothing but burgers.

  30. Sounds like a good Kebab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nefariously good Al-Shabaab El-Kebabs now at your nearest mall! We shall threat you with some delicious weight gain!

  31. Don't go to the food court at lunchtime by Pro923 · · Score: 1

    I've always said that if I were a terrorist organization, my next move (after 9/11) would be: At 12:30 on Christmas eve, I would sent 50 different martyrs to a mall in each state, with a bomb in a backpack. The martyr would be instructed to go to the food court at 12:30 and detonate at exactly that time. On the news, the stories would pour in from every state in the union - and terror would ensue. People would be afraid to go to shopping malls, and the economy would take a massive beating.

  32. there is no reason any more for them to go to MOA by swschrad · · Score: 1

    because they would not renew the lease of Famous Dave's BBQ. thus, it's no longer a destination

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  33. SDHS Johnson A Threat To USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DHS is walking-down Johnson's earlier accusations of a "Threat" to Mall of America.

    However, Johnson is keeping on talking.

    Now is says he "hears" Muslims in America telling him they are mad that ISIL/ISIS has "stollen" their "Religion."

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/22/homeland-security-chief-muslims-in-u-s-resent-islamic-state-attempting-to-hijack-their-religion/

    Maybe those "Muslims" are just voices in Johnson's head; which by the way makes him unfit to serve and must be removed quickly and by force.

    Johnson, like Obama, seems not to realize that "Muslim" is a ethnic distinction and Islam is a religion.

    Why does Obama have to hire such idiots?

    Ipso facto.

    An idiot is as an idiot does.

  34. Easy solution to islamic terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take the sack same tack as then and kill every single muzzie. Problem solved.

  35. Why you will never see this in Panama. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Panama they have a military police man assigned to ... Bimbo bread trucks.
    And that is just the start.
    There are guns everywhere here.
    Before you enter the mall...two guys on an attack motorbike with fully automatic weapons at the ready are driving around you.
    As you enter the parking lot...Police are at every corner and entrance.
    As you enter the mall...Security Mall Guards, have...you guessed it..guns.
    When you enter stores, some not all, like banks and so forth, have a guy with a metal detector and a gun.
    Then there are guys walking around with radios, ready to call in the least bit of disturbance.
    Cameras EVERYWHERE.

    So there is where you are going America.
    Enjoy your new prison.

  36. More fucking whackjobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling all whackjobs on the planet - you too can have fame and fortune (well maybe not fortune) if you become a martyr for our whackjob religion. All new martyors are guarenteed 99 virgins (goats) if they successfully complete a mission. Please tell your friends of our offer. You'll get bonus virgins (goats) if your friends sign up. We realize you're a little lacking in the IQ department so significant technical training is provided (dancing goats). Please ignore our horrible spelling our school stopped at grade 5 (why go further just to grow opium and tend goats?). Be careful on the way to heaven - no bending over allowed (that's what the goats are for). Praise Allah (or whatever the fucking retards name is).

  37. The CIA posted this video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so they could mind control you more

    stay classy slashdot

  38. Diversity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... our strength.

  39. How many terrorists are in the US? by cybergremlin · · Score: 1

    A small thought experiment: If we define an operational terrorist as being, on average, one year from carrying out an attack then looking at the number of attacks will tell us how many there are. If terrorists are literally "one in a million" then we would expect one attack per day. At 50 or so one attack per week. How many do we get? Durring 2004-2013: anywhere from 5-24 per year (Global Terrorism Database). About one or two a month, on average. Most of those don't actually kill anyone, like eco-terrorists setting fire to a car dealership. Under two dozen lethal events over a 10 year span, about a dozen mass injury, and two mass fatality. So how many bloodthirsty, lethal, capable terrorists are there here at any one time? A couple dozen maybe? Probably less. In a country of 318 million. The good news is the odds of being killed by a terrorist is astonishingly small. The bad news is that a million-plus names on a watchlist is a REALY big haystack for a very small number of needles.

  40. If I were in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd promote this type of behavior, tax them for the use of their monitoring vpn tag like so.

    Now I know who to pay attention to.

    Your government, any government, will operate in a similar fashion.

  41. plate scanners by banzairun · · Score: 2

    MOA already has had some not-so-typical "security" in place -- they have had license-plate recognition cameras at all entrances and exits for a couple years now. The sleek-looking camera heads with two lenses, one for each lane, are fairly easy to notice as you're driving in, mounted about 12' up on poles or a wall. I've always found that sort of technology completely creepy in actual use. A government building, perhaps... but a mall in Minnesota?

    How long are the records kept? Why were they installed? Are they sharing information with local police to try to catch people with an outstanding traffic warrant? ...or are they just trying to glean some more marketing information? We don't know.

    I'd guess they'll take this opportunity to install facial recognition cameras in the transit station, so they can build themselves a database on who takes the light rail in from Cedar/Riverside and where they train their eyes while walking around in Camp Shoot Me. We'll be living in fear in no time, just the way we like it!

  42. And their next target is... by whitroth · · Score: 1

    The Castle that's in the logo of every Disney picture. And then the Fortress of Solitude, and....

                  mark