• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Between this and the Moscow theater hostage crisis…and I guess the Bataclan attacks in France…people seem to target theaters in other countries.

    But the US seems much more concerned about sporting events being targeted in the US. I don’t hear about security restrictions on theaters.

    I guess a sporting event can have a lot more people, and if televised might be higher visibility. But I’d think that any vulnerability would persist across national boundaries.

    • apis@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Outside of the US, soccer fixtures are the biggest sporting events (certainly in Europe & Russia).

      Due to a long history of violent football hooliganism, there is already elevated security around these events & international intelligence coordination preceding them.

      Additionally, it is usually very difficult to obtain tickets unless you have connections to a club.

      These factors would make them trickier targets than lesser sporting events or concerts.

      Differences in transport access to sporting stadia & theatres in different countries may also play a role. Terrorists naturally take logistics into account.

      And maybe the US just picks up more chatter about sporting events & not much about theatres?

      But yeah, broadly either type of target is possible anywhere.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Terrorists are always going to attack whatever has the most convenient combination of lax security and number of people for them. They don’t go for cultural venues because they loath theater, they go for them because there’s less things that go wrong for them.

      The best governments can do is to have more security in places with more people - like sports events.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Well, they could actually govern for the people and leave no sane person any reason to do bad things…

        … but then since when has government been in the business of improving the commoner’s life?

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Someone’s social status is orthogonal to the pressures that drive people to be hopeless about society. In fact, poor people tend to have better community, which directly helps people not turn to terrible decisions.

            It should be no surprise what so ever. It takes both a lack of support and a lack of availability. It’s only natural that people who have the least emotional reason to stay sane are the ones more likely to snap.

        • plistig@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, the average terrorist is extremely rational, and would never do attacks if their needs were met. Simple needs like killing everyone who does not worship their god exactly the same way they do.

          Consume less tiktok. Can’t you see that it rots your brain?