81 replies to this topic

[Fluffybunny]

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.

I don't think you understand how evil the enemy is that we are dealing with:

Everyone knows that wheelchair-bound octogenarians may look like they are loving and want to bake you an apple pie, but they very well could be smuggling c4 in their bras, so they need to be groped in order to keep them in line.


We know for sure that handicapped 5 year olds are obviously evil, and a good choice for packing explosives. Little Timmy might just look like a kid that has had a tough run of things so far, but that is exactly what Timmy wants you to think, so he can have the upper hand and kill the flight crew before anyone catches on...meanwhile he is diverting the plane and heading towards cuba.

Obviously there needs to be security for airplanes, the risk is too high to leave them unsecured. However I personally think that groping, xraying, and mistreating the poor disabled grandmothers of the country are not the way to do it.

Many other countries have been dealing with terrorism of one form or another for longer than we have, and have been able to create safety systems that do not hinge on EVERYONE being a criminal until proven otherwise. I have flown all over the world and never had to deal with the ridiculous actions done by under-trained and overzealous staff. We should be learning from other countries and not trying to reinvent the billion dollar wheel.

Of course there will be people who would support any action as long as their government told them it was for their safety. I bet my tiny paycheck that if they wanted to introduce cavity checks because some idiot snuck a weapon on board in his keyster, there would be some people who could completely rationalize it and support the idea. Stupid ideas will always have stupid supporters to rationalize the idea; regardless of the damage being done. Think about all the people that loved the idea of suspending habeas corpus to take care of all of the evil terrorists; with no concern for what kind of future legal ramifications that were potentially being created. There are just too many examples of bad ideas being backed by people simply because they feel it will help their safety.

[Fluffybunny]

Artaxerxes, on 17 April 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

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.

...and the guy that places the explosive in his rectal canal?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Fluffybunny, on 17 April 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

...and the guy that places the explosive in his rectal canal?

Has one last fit of explosive diarrhea?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 17 April 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Has one last fit of explosive diarrhea?

Or... rectum darn near killed em...
Was that below the belt humor?
OK OK back on track

[Fluffybunny]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 17 April 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Has one last fit of explosive diarrhea?

Quote

Noordin may have hidden explosives in anus, say experts
The terrorist approached the prince during a breaking of fast dinner at his residence. He got past the metal detector because he hid the explosives in his anus.

Not surprisingly, it really does happen.

[Stellar]

Some people say "If you don't want to go through the security checks, don't fly?"

What if I turned around and said do away with the security checks, and if you feel the risk to your safety is too high "dont fly"...

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Stellar, on 17 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Some people say "If you don't want to go through the security checks, don't fly?"

What if I turned around and said do away with the security checks, and if you feel the risk to your safety is too high "dont fly"...

Stellar, on 17 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Some people say "If you don't want to go through the security checks, don't fly?"

What if I turned around and said do away with the security checks, and if you feel the risk to your safety is too high "dont fly"...

[DKO]

Stellar, on 17 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Some people say "If you don't want to go through the security checks, don't fly?"

What if I turned around and said do away with the security checks, and if you feel the risk to your safety is too high "dont fly"...

But isnt the odd person being pat down better than a plane of hundreds going down because of an explosive?

[DKO]

Simbi Laveau, on 16 April 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

http://www.huffingto....html?ir=Travel

I applied for a job with the TSA,part time,while trying to get my acupuncture practice going.
I would have ended up at Kennedy Airport.
I took the tests,and had my interview. One incident at the office,made me change my mind,despite needing the money very badly.
They are truly ,a bunch of buffoons.
Especially at Kennedy

Hey if you dont mind me asking but what was the incident you saw that changed your mind? Just curious.

[TK0001]

DKO, on 17 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

But isnt the odd person being pat down better than a plane of hundreds going down because of an explosive?

It's that sense of fear and paranoia that keeps the TSA employed.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Read through the thread, more carefully. A multitude of countries have been dealing with realistic terrorist threats for decades, yet don't employ such invasive procedures. Even after 9/11, when our fear of terrorism was at it's peak, we didn't resort to these measures.

These procedures are not for our safety, don't fool yourself. They are put in place so the government can create a sense of continual danger and fear, and they want to condition us to sacrifice our rights whenever the State asks us to. Doing so makes us obedient and ultimately controllable.

[TK0001]

DKO, my apologies. I assumed you were from the US.

[Englishgent]

I think what people tend to forget is that the type of terrorists we are dealing with would think nothing of secreting an explosive device on their child or granny. I agree that at times they appear to go over the top, but I would rather the kiddy in front of me is searched than not searched and all on board (including me)  die as a consequence.
It is an unfortunate sign of the times that we have to go to these extremes in order to be as sure as we can be that the terrorists will not win.
I have been through machines which show that I have no explosives in my undies and am quite happy to do so.  The only thing I find frustrating about it all is the extra queueing time involved but I am aware that it is necessary.
Admittedly, the only time I have been to the USA was a couple of months after 9/11 so I cannot comment on the way they conduct their searches now. Back then, even directly after the incident, I was not searched thoroughly on my return flight to the UK (which was on an American airline).

[karmakazi]

TK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

It's that sense of fear and paranoia that keeps the TSA employed.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Read through the thread, more carefully. A multitude of countries have been dealing with realistic terrorist threats for decades, yet don't employ such invasive procedures. Even after 9/11, when our fear of terrorism was at it's peak, we didn't resort to these measures.

These procedures are not for our safety, don't fool yourself. They are put in place so the government can create a sense of continual danger and fear, and they want to condition us to sacrifice our rights whenever the State asks us to. Doing so makes us obedient and ultimately controllable.

    

[TK0001]

Englishgent, on 17 April 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

I think what people tend to forget is that the type of terrorists we are dealing with would think nothing of secreting an explosive device on their child or granny. I agree that at times they appear to go over the top, but I would rather the kiddy in front of me is searched than not searched and all on board (including me)  die as a consequence.
It is an unfortunate sign of the times that we have to go to these extremes in order to be as sure as we can be that the terrorists will not win.
I have been through machines which show that I have no explosives in my undies and am quite happy to do so.  The only thing I find frustrating about it all is the extra queueing time involved but I am aware that it is necessary.
Admittedly, the only time I have been to the USA was a couple of months after 9/11 so I cannot comment on the way they conduct their searches now. Back then, even directly after the incident, I was not searched thoroughly on my return flight to the UK (which was on an American airline).

No one is saying there aren't sick people in the world who wish to do harm to innocents.

But if I told you that were far more effective methods of terrorist detection than taking naked pictures of people or groping them, would you still willingly submit to those procedures?

[Englishgent]

TK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

No one is saying there aren't sick people in the world who wish to do harm to innocents.

But if I told you that were far more effective methods of terrorist detection than taking naked pictures of people or groping them, would you still willingly submit to those procedures?

Hi TK0001
I know we are far from being perfect in our detection of terrorists. They will always be one step ahead. But in answer to your question, I would rather submit to the procedure than be blown up in mid air!
I am well aware that for some people it is an embarassing procedure.
If you know of better methods for detecting terrorists, why does the government also not know, and if they do know, why do they not use them?