81 replies to this topic

[Simbi Laveau]

Sakari, on 17 April 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Colorado, I gotta say I am surprised that you said this......Out of 9 Law Enforcement people I know, 7 are ex-Military.....All 7 in live combat in the first Iraq War.....

They all have in one way or another saved someones life......My Ex's Uncle ( great guy ) flew a Apache, and now flies for the San Diego Police Department, getting druggies off the streets, and other thugs.....

ouch man..........



Can't all ways agree, that would be no fun


Still like ya bro

As I said,I was up for a job with them,and turned it down after seeing how they operate.
I was broke,and starving,and still said no way.
This was just before they tried to take the manuscript of the last harry potter from jk rowling.
Yeah,so many people have died by manuscript.Terrible stuff .

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Sakari, on 17 April 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Yes I do, is there something wrong with me having my own opinion?

Anyone can have their's also, and I can respect that......

I  just wanted to point out that yes, they have and do find " stuff " as many people try to say they do not....



It is really simple, and not being rude.....If you do not like it, do not fly....It is a choice that anyone get's to make.

If you do not mind it, fly all you want, that is a choice anyone get's to make.

I'm sorry sakari. No offense intended. I have stopped flying.

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch, 17 April 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[Sakari]

sam12six, on 17 April 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

I disagree somewhat with that view (unless you count the deterrent effect of their sheer presence). I believe the job was once to maintain peace and has evolved into collecting revenue for the government.




Well, you posted examples of TSA seizing dangerous things. I'm making an assumption, but it seems that you did so to support the idea that TSA methods are working. If they confiscated these dangerous things by squeezing peoples' junk, making them take their shoes off, or pouring out liquids, you've definitely got a point.

If, on the other hand, they confiscated these dangerous things using the same methods that would have found them pre-9/11 (metal detectors on people and xrays of bags), to me that would argue that their added intrusive activities are pointless.

Yup, here is one from the " dreaded " imaging machine people cry about........( below my little rant )


I am really not going to get into this to much, I have a certain person I really do not want to upset, as I may go to Seattle one day and need information on local rock bands to see.


Pistole said the AIT machine had alerted screeners to an anomaly in the ankle area.



No one can say if the TSA has stopped any attacks, or threats, but we can say they are finding dangerous items.That is a fact.....And, we can not, and will not know if any were going to be used for any hijackings, or even attacks on passengers.We can say there have not been any....

I have seen people say " after 9/11 people will not just sit there, they will act out and fight "........Anyone see all of the woosies on the plane where the Pilot went nuts........Not one person helped until he was out cold......

K, I am done

[Englishgent]

ColoradoParanormal, on 17 April 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

- post removed -

Hi CP
I normally agree with things that you post. You usually tend to post intelligent responses to threads and I always enjoy reading them.
However, on this occasion, if you dont mind me saying,  you have sunk pretty low. If you knew anything about the work of a police officer you would know that if an officer had a severe inferiority complex he/she would probably not even get through their initial training.  Police officers, like military personel, have to make many split second decisions during their career, sometimes lifesaving decisions. Not the sort of thing that a person with an inferiority complex would generally be able to do.
The other thing is, and I speak for the UK, not the USA, the proportion of ex armed service personel who join the police is fairly small. This is only going from personal experience, not from statistics as I have not looked them up.
Now, you may well have had some personal experience of an officer who came across in the manner you suggest, but please, do not tar us all with the same brush as I find that rather offensive.  I feel sure that if you just stop and think for a while you may well retract what you have said. On the other hand, you may not lol.
Thank you.

edit.....typos

[sam12six]

Sakari, on 17 April 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Yup, here is one from the " dreaded " imaging machine people cry about........( below my little rant )


I am really not going to get into this to much, I have a certain person I really do not want to upset, as I may go to Seattle one day and need information on local rock bands to see.


Pistole said the AIT machine had alerted screeners to an anomaly in the ankle area.

Fair enough. They have demonstrated that the current methods are more likely to find drugs hidden on a person's body. Now the question is: Do you think anyone cares if other passengers are carrying illegal things that won't do them any harm?

I'm sure those who profit from the war on drugs applaud the idea, but everyone else...

Sakari, on 17 April 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

No one can say if the TSA has stopped any attacks, or threats, but we can say they are finding dangerous items.That is a fact.....And, we can not, and will not know if any were going to be used for any hijackings, or even attacks on passengers.We can say there have not been any....

I think you're misunderstanding my point. Unless it can be demonstrated that TSA methodology is catching SIGNIFICANTLY more of this dangerous material than pre-9/11 methods (or other less intrusive but successful methods currently used elsewhere), then the expense of the huge TSA machine can't be justified (and that's before even getting into how much subjecting millions of completely innocent people to being poked and prodded by strangers is worth).

[Englishgent]

ColoradoParanormal, on 17 April 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

- post removed -

Thank you.

[Sakari]

ColoradoParanormal, on 17 April 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

- post removed -

Understand 100% now......No worries

[Timonthy]

Do you want to be safe or do you want to sook over pat downs? Simple as that.

Inferiority complex for the officers or the people complaining about the security measures? Debatable which is worse...

I would think Americans would appreciate these measures as a whole, am I wrong??

I've been subject to 'random' bomb residue tests or pat downs nearly every time I've flown. Surely people must appreciate the job these people are doing. (I wonder if it's the shaved head )

Would you rather an innocent person have measures imposed on them? Or a terrorist walk onto a plane with a bomb?

(I'm at work so haven't read the whole thread, don't hurt me if I'm regurgitating posts, I don't mind if you pat me down though)

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Timonthy, on 17 April 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Do you want to be safe or do you want to sook over pat downs? Simple as that.

Inferiority complex for the officers or the people complaining about the security measures? Debatable which is worse...

I would think Americans would appreciate these measures as a whole, am I wrong??

I've been subject to 'random' bomb residue tests or pat downs nearly every time I've flown. Surely people must appreciate the job these people are doing. (I wonder if it's the shaved head )

Would you rather an innocent person have measures imposed on them? Or a terrorist walk onto a plane with a bomb?

(I'm at work so haven't read the whole thread, don't hurt me if I'm regurgitating posts, I don't mind if you pat me down though)

Its that black and white? When is it OK to touch little kids privates?
Would you rather a few hundred people die in an airplane or a few thousand in an airport?
The FAA has made entry into the cockpit virtually impossible. So the plane wont be hijacked.
Would you rather have every personal right violated or would you like to defend yourself if the need arise?
Would you rather the terrorist win or would you have your freedoms back? I'm sorry I feel so strongly about this but where does it end? When will people stop being terrorized in the name of security. What is your line not to be crossed?
I do not fly anymore. Most parents should weigh the issue of allowing their kids to fly while the tsa are still involved. How do you say don't let strangers touch you there... well except these strangers cause they want to make sure your safe.

Timonthy, on 17 April 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Do you want to be safe or do you want to sook over pat downs? Simple as that.

Inferiority complex for the officers or the people complaining about the security measures? Debatable which is worse...

I would think Americans would appreciate these measures as a whole, am I wrong??

I've been subject to 'random' bomb residue tests or pat downs nearly every time I've flown. Surely people must appreciate the job these people are doing. (I wonder if it's the shaved head )

Would you rather an innocent person have measures imposed on them? Or a terrorist walk onto a plane with a bomb?

(I'm at work so haven't read the whole thread, don't hurt me if I'm regurgitating posts, I don't mind if you pat me down though)

Its that black and white? When is it OK to touch little kids privates?
Would you rather a few hundred people die in an airplane or a few thousand in an airport?
The FAA has made entry into the cockpit virtually impossible. So the plane wont be hijacked.
Would you rather have every personal right violated or would you like to defend yourself if the need arise?
Would you rather the terrorist win or would you have your freedoms back? I'm sorry I feel so strongly about this but where does it end? When will people stop being terrorized in the name of security. What is your line not to be crossed?
I do not fly anymore. Most parents should weigh the issue of allowing their kids to fly while the tsa are still involved. How do you say don't let strangers touch you there... well except these strangers cause they want to make sure your safe.

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch, 17 April 2012 - 04:03 AM.

[TK0001]

And there's the fear that they need to continue. Someone, somewhere could try to sneak a bomb on board, so everyonem including babies and old people, must be subjected to pat downs which are so invasive they include the touching of genitals. Either that, or you can stand in a machine which shoots radiation into your body (machines that are considered too harmful in Europe) and takes a naked picture of you.

Since 9/11, THIS is the best we can do?

If security were privatized, common sense could once again be employed. Profiling could be used again, despite it not being PC. But the government doesn't want that because they want you to be an obedient servant who will freely give up your rights if the state requires it.

Don't fly? Brillliant, I won't. Except what happens when I am told I have be across the country tomorrow for work?

Then its submit to the authority of the state or be jailed and lose your job.

But hey, someone, somewhere might try to smuggle a bomb on board.

[Stellar]

Quote

If you do not mind it, fly all you want, that is a choice anyone get's to make.

I find that line of reasoning very dangerous... Push it a bit further and it can be used to justify strip searching people who enter grocery stores. "If you don't mind it, buy your food at the store all you want. Otherwise, start a farm. No one's forcing you to go to the store."

[TK0001]

Stellar, on 17 April 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

I find that line of reasoning very dangerous... Push it a bit further and it can be used to justify strip searching people who enter grocery stores. "If you don't mind it, buy your food at the store all you want. Otherwise, start a farm. No one's forcing you to go to the store."

But someone might try to sneak a bomb into the grocery store. Don't you want to feel safe while picking through produce?




(Please read my sarcasm)

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

I don't think people do appreciate the lengths they go to and using fear tactics/psychology to try and submit people into accepting the lengths they take is completely wrong.

I can't speak for the way the US does things, but in the UK and Ireland who lived with REAL terrorism threats (IRA) for decades before 9/11 even happened, and had implemented security measures into all our airports etc, was no where near as ridiculous or harsh, and worked very well without all this intrusion. The record of that alone should have shown it was the common sense approach that worked without having to go to lengths which piss people off and make people feel violated or scared for their health. It is over the top now and there is nothing to prove that it keeps us any more safer when flying.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

AnVil, on 17 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

I don't think people do appreciate the lengths they go to and using fear tactics/psychology to try and submit people into accepting the lengths they take is completely wrong.

I can't speak for the way the US does things, but in the UK and Ireland who lived with REAL terrorism threats (IRA) for decades before 9/11 even happened, and had implemented security measures into all our airports etc, was no where near as ridiculous or harsh, and worked very well without all this intrusion. The record of that alone should have shown it was the common sense approach that worked without having to go to lengths which piss people off and make people feel violated or scared for their health. It is over the top now and there is nothing to prove that it keeps us any more safer when flying.

well said .... they need a smily face called :tiphat:

[Artaxerxes]

I think they should require that everyone strip naked to fly.  Completely buck slap naked.  I wouldn't mind.  Then we can just get re-dressed when we reach our destination.  Easy Peasy.