"Amy Guskin"  wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1EDF1F6006EFAB3F0182648{at}news.verizon.net...

>
> For the record, I do think Boston overreacted, but I think it was also the
> only city where the devices were places on things like bridges, stanchions
> holding up overpass, and other places where you'd traditionally put a bomb
to
> do maximum damage.  The only one I saw on a news report in Phila. was one
> placed on the main, front-of-store sign of a city location Foot Locker.
If
> someone was trying to blow up the Foot Locker, they probably wouldn't have
> put the device up there, where it was designed to be _seen_.  I think it
was
> a combination of overreaction and a very stupid guerrilla marketing plan.

And its because of he location of the devices, and perhaps the memory of the
9/11 hijackers flying out of...well...Boston, that helped with how the city
reacted.

Sure, we know now that its a stupid guerilla marketing plan. At the time,
thoiugh, it could have been terrorists placing smething that seems like an
ad, but is really a bomb, or doing smething to distract law enforcement
while the real attack is elsewhere in the city, or even...heck...just
distrupting things as was accomplished.
:-)


> Direct link to a "10" vote for me: http://tinyurl.com/y49w3n
Done :-)

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32