Scare in NYC: Time's Square Evacuated

[Kodiak]

[Updated at 1:51 p.m.] A spokesman for the Times Square Alliance says, according to the NYPD, the following streets are closed:

* East bound on 46th street from 8th Ave

* West bound on 45th street from 6th Ave.

* And the Broadway and 7th Ave plaza between 44th and 47th.

* 44th and 47th streets themselves are not closed.

[Updated at 1:45 p.m.] The suspicious package that prompted evacuations in New York's Times Square is a white cooler that was left near the front of the Marriott Marquis Hotel, police told CNN.

The area is not far from where Faisal Shahzad left his SUV that had explosives in it.

[Posted at 1:24 p.m.] Times Square has been evacuated after a suspicious package was found near 45th street, a New York Police Department official said.

The package was found near 45th Street and Broadway, officials said.

The evacuation comes six days after an SUV with explosives was left in Times Square resulting in the arrest of Faisal Shahzad.

This story is developing. We'll bring you the latest information as we get it.

hopefully it turns out to be a false alarm. More as develops.

[Soontir C'boath]

Looks like somebody forgot to take their $1 water bottles to sell.

[wautd]

I really hope this is false alarm.

[Temujin]

There's definitely going to a lot of overreacting (not that its not warranted) in the wake of the latest incident, but its just a good thing it wasn't a success. Aside from the obvious casualties, we'd have to hear all the rabid mouth breathing idiots screaming about how Obama can't protect us and how we have to bomb Whatthefuckistan.

[Dartzap]

To be honest, every time I hear the words "A car bomb has been found" on the news, I just automatically assume its some Irish dissidents doing the rounds again. They attempted to blow up a polling station the other day, it barely got five seconds in the headlines Its a shame that this is going to increase the paranoia in the US. Its bad for peoples mental health, heh.

[Sarevok]

It seems you don't actually need to kill anyone to be a successful terrorist in America. Just fear alone will do the job.

[Stark]

Are you familiar with the definition of terrorism? If you're using fear to cause political change, you're a terrorist. 'Terror', get it?

[Norade]

Are you familiar with the definition of terrorism? If you're using fear to cause political change, you're a terrorist. 'Terror', get it?

How much terror do similar attacks cause in Ireland? How much fear would they spread if we stopped covering these shit stains?

[Sarevok]

On the flipside maybe the terrorists will get the message too. If they realize they can bring America to its knees by providing just the right amount of material for American media maybe less people will die in actual terror attacks. Surely the actual big terrorist groups with capability to attack American homesoil know this by now. The material damage they do is insignificance compared to the effects on people psyche.

[Temujin]

I think that's been pretty much terrorist SOP since the Dawson's Field hijackings, if not before.

[SAMAS]

Are you familiar with the definition of terrorism? If you're using fear to cause political change, you're a terrorist. 'Terror', get it?

Of course, by that definition, we could start rounding up several GOP members and Teabaggers.

Seriously though, it seems that the media's current MO of using fear to hook viewers will only make things worse than they really are.

[General Zod]

Are you familiar with the definition of terrorism? If you're using fear to cause political change, you're a terrorist. 'Terror', get it?

Of course, by that definition, we could start rounding up several GOP members and Teabaggers.

Seriously though, it seems that the media's current MO of using fear to hook viewers will only make things worse than they really are.

It's not like terrorists will go away if you ignore them. They'll do whatever they think will draw the most attention to themselves.

[Norade]

Are you familiar with the definition of terrorism? If you're using fear to cause political change, you're a terrorist. 'Terror', get it?

Of course, by that definition, we could start rounding up several GOP members and Teabaggers.

Seriously though, it seems that the media's current MO of using fear to hook viewers will only make things worse than they really are.

It's not like terrorists will go away if you ignore them. They'll do whatever they think will draw the most attention to themselves.

So give them no attention even for the big shit, down play it and move on.

[General Zod]

So give them no attention even for the big shit, down play it and move on.

You honestly expect people to downplay destroyed buildings and hundreds of deaths?

[Bluewolf]

How much terror do similar attacks cause in Ireland? How much fear would they spread if we stopped covering these shit stains?

When IRA bombings were at their peak, they got a lot of coverage at the time and hurt our economy and made us more wary. It was hard to ignore bomb attack after bomb attack.

Nowadays it rarely happens outside small car bombs etc and even those are rare.

Plus as said, it is hard to ignore 500 people getting blown up.

[Norade]

So give them no attention even for the big shit, down play it and move on.

You honestly expect people to downplay destroyed buildings and hundreds of deaths?

No, but it would take the piss out of the attacks in a hurry.

[General Zod]

So give them no attention even for the big shit, down play it and move on.

You honestly expect people to downplay destroyed buildings and hundreds of deaths?

No, but it would take the piss out of the attacks in a hurry.

You're delusional if you think they'd do anything but increase the scale until people stopped ignoring them.

[Norade]

You're delusional if you think they'd do anything but increase the scale until people stopped ignoring them.

How long did it take to plan 9/11 when they weren't under siege with a crumbling power base? I doubt they could repeat an attack of the scale within the next decade and anything bigger may not even be possible.

[General Zod]

You're delusional if you think they'd do anything but increase the scale until people stopped ignoring them.

How long did it take to plan 9/11 when they weren't under siege with a crumbling power base? I doubt they could repeat an attack of the scale within the next decade and anything bigger may not even be possible.

Since when does putting them under siege count as "ignoring them"? I don't think you've thought this through very well.

[Norade]

You're delusional if you think they'd do anything but increase the scale until people stopped ignoring them.

How long did it take to plan 9/11 when they weren't under siege with a crumbling power base? I doubt they could repeat an attack of the scale within the next decade and anything bigger may not even be possible.

Since when does putting them under siege count as "ignoring them"? I don't think you've thought this through very well.

We can maintain a siege while not putting it into the news each day...

[General Zod]

We can maintain a siege while not putting it into the news each day...

Not if you hope to maintain any semblance of public oversight over military actions. I'm still not seeing how ignoring them would "take the piss out of their attacks".

[Norade]

We can maintain a siege while not putting it into the news each day...

Not if you hope to maintain any semblance of public oversight over military actions. I'm still not seeing how ignoring them would "take the piss out of their attacks".

If small attacks get no cover there terror only effects a small area. If we keep them under siege with only small updates to keep the public informed then they can do little beyond small attacks. Given how easy it is to hide the really nasty parts of a war from the public I'd say any coverage of the war is unneeded as the average person knows little of what it takes to win a war and will never know enough to make a choice either way from watching the news.

In short public oversight of the military is stupid at best and harmful to a nations ability to defend itself and project power at worst.

[General Zod]

If small attacks get no cover there terror only effects a small area. If we keep them under siege with only small updates to keep the public informed then they can do little beyond small attacks. Given how easy it is to hide the really nasty parts of a war from the public I'd say any coverage of the war is unneeded as the average person knows little of what it takes to win a war and will never know enough to make a choice either way from watching the news.

. . . you don't do sieges for "small" terror attacks. Exactly what definition of "small" are you using? A lack of media exposure certainly didn't keep the guy in Texas from flying his plane into a federal building. The idea that a group of terrorists can't do anything but small attacks if we keep the public in the dark is completely detached from reality.

In short public oversight of the military is stupid at best and harmful to a nations ability to defend itself and project power at worst.

So you'd rather the public didn't ever find out the military was abusing its power or fucked up and killed a bunch of civilians?

[Norade]

If small attacks get no cover there terror only effects a small area. If we keep them under siege with only small updates to keep the public informed then they can do little beyond small attacks. Given how easy it is to hide the really nasty parts of a war from the public I'd say any coverage of the war is unneeded as the average person knows little of what it takes to win a war and will never know enough to make a choice either way from watching the news.

. . . you don't do sieges for "small" terror attacks. Exactly what definition of "small" are you using? A lack of media exposure certainly didn't keep the guy in Texas from flying his plane into a federal building. The idea that a group of terrorists can't do anything but small attacks if we keep the public in the dark is completely detached from reality.

I was speaking more to overseas terrorists. As for domestic terrorists they would do what they do regardless. Most do it for reasons other than simply causing fear.

In short public oversight of the military is stupid at best and harmful to a nations ability to defend itself and project power at worst.

So you'd rather the public didn't ever find out the military was abusing its power or fucked up and killed a bunch of civilians?

Unlike those in the states my government doesn't engage in wars of aggression on shitty intel so I could care less if Canada's military gets press. In the States what press you do get is so biased as to be useless in seeing the big picture anyway so that it would almost be better for people to see nothing at all. After all, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[General Zod]

I was speaking more to overseas terrorists. As for domestic terrorists they would do what they do regardless. Most do it for reasons other than simply causing fear.

Then it wouldn't matter if they got "press releases" or not. Any group of terrorists with organizational capability greater than a boy-scout troup wouldn't exclusively rely on the media for their intel.

Unlike those in the states my government doesn't engage in wars of aggression on shitty intel so I could care less if Canada's military gets press. In the States what press you do get is so biased as to be useless in seeing the big picture anyway so that it would almost be better for people to see nothing at all. After all, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Exactly how do you expect to know whether or not your government is getting into wars of aggression on shitty intel if the press doesn't cover it? Magic? We wouldn't have learned about all the fuckups of Bush's maladministration if it weren't for the press coverage.