Terrorism and the TSA page 5

172 posts

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Well, I see the subject has changed. :(

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Well, I see the subject has changed. :(

More than welcome to change it back.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Well, I see the subject has changed. :(

You don’t say?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Well, I see the subject has changed. :(


More than welcome to change it back.


But he won’t(probably)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

You can accept the fact we have many projects the public cannot accept or you can bury your head. Reality is what you make of it. I can only hint to you of what is possible without saying too much. Do with it what you want.

Quite right. Ever since the discovery of the Stargate in Giza in 1922, Darpa’s made phenomenal technological leaps under the cloak of top secret.

 
Flag Post

The TSA are true patriots and they should be applauded. No attacks since 9/11.
I still feel we should do more, like Israel does with their national airline. They do not play games with security and they use every tool available to insure total protection including racial profiling.

You see, they understand even racism is OK as long as it saves lives. Sadly, the USA does not understand that.

 
Flag Post

I can’t think of a better way to max out anti-US sentiment worldwide than if the US moved from actively allying with Israel to actively emulating their security apparatus. In no other developed country has the phrase ‘the ends justify the means’ become so enshrined in their security policies.

 
Flag Post

How about if we just cut to the chase. The TSA has not caught the first terrorist and they will never catch one unless they just fall on one by accident. They are checking little old ladies and children the most, while letting anyone who resembles a Muslim go through with out the first glance. They claim it is so they can’t be accused of profiling. But who are we at war with? We are at war with Muslims. I know, you are going to claim it is a small faction, but the fact remains the terrorists are Muslim. So instead of looking for people of Muslim decent, we look for mothers carrying babies with bottles full of milk, old women that have to be helped on the planes, etc. When are we going to say enough and start looking into real security that isn’t intrusive. Lets stop molesting the children as they have never had a child terrorist. Let’s use common sense instead of feel good BS.

 
Flag Post

Still waiting on an answer to my earlier question jhco…

That aside, yes it’s still security theatre (i.e. making a show of doing something to make people feel better) and kinda pointless but;

You have a reliable source, of course, for the fact they’re not screening muslims?
What exactly does a person of muslim decent (sic) look like? A follower of a religion can be of any creed or colour, come from any country, etc.
Care to explain how ‘real security’ would not be intrusive? By its very nature it must, surely, intefer to some extent with travellers and travel operations.
Never had a child terrorist… ok that’s just laughable. If, however, you have evidence that children are being molested (rather than screened) you know what to do… police/civil action —> court

But yes, as stated right at the beginning it is BS (who’d of thunked it, something else we agree on) but people would rather have an illusion of safety than the, generally unfounded, fear of a terrorist attack (blame the media/government for ramping up the paranoia levels).

 
Flag Post

“Does the TSA provide perimeter security to all airports?” This question? I left a link to the TSA website way back there, I didn’t save the site

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

“Does the TSA provide perimeter security to all airports?” This question? I left a link to the TSA website way back there, I didn’t save the site

They have handled it in partnership with the airport at a number of airports. A variety of pilot programs, most of which concluded in or before 2009. All of these were designed to augment the airport’s own security procedures. Source

Most airports handle their own general security.

All airports outside of the US handle their own security. However good the TSA are, the likelihood of a new terrorist incident coming from a plane entering the US, is always going to be greatest, simply because we have no control over what their security measures (if any) are.

 
Flag Post

It’s my understanding that some countries have caught terrorists with their security systems, where we have not. give me your opinion on why they are checking interstate flights from say Denver to Houston or Dallas? Are they worried about our own people? I wouldn’t put it past them to be afraid of our own citizens.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I wouldn’t put it past them to be afraid of our own citizens.

And rightly so. Whilst concealed carry is a good thing in some circumstances, on a plane it is a disaster waiting to happen. If a terrorist tries to hyjack a plane, and a concerned citizen draws a gun and shoots at him, we have a real problem. At 40,000 feet, if a single bullet punctures the hull of the aircraft, say by striking a window, the pressure differential will rip the entire side of the plane off. The passengers will be blown out of the plane, and the rest of the plane will deteriorate. End result: everyone dies. All from a single shot, either missed, or which penetrated the target and kept on going.

So, we need to keep guns off planes. That’s a very good reason right there.

Secondly, there are many instances where an American national converts to one faith or another, or becomes a member of a radical group. They are American through and through, but they are also radical. Quite likely to ‘make a point’ the violent way. Checking all citizens keeps dangerous citizens from smuggling something lethal or explosive onto the plane.

The cargo is checked the same way. The last thing anyone needs is a flammable material smuggled on board, or for your flight to be carrying $500,000 worth of drugs, et cetera. In the same vein, going back to the passengers, many people are poor. An individual with little money would find it quite tempting to ‘fly this item across the country’ if they are being paid to do so. This item could be any number of bad things. If we make Americans exempt from the process, we open up an immediate exploitable vector. The criminal element then knows that anything smuggled by a US citizen is going to be safe and undetected. Much safer than trying to drive it across the country, watching out for the law all the way.

 
Flag Post

I didn’t suggest we all carry guns on the plane. That aside, it has been proven that this wouldn’t happen as planes aren’t traveling that fast. Even though they have done studies on this I wouldn’t want to fire a shot in that small of a space anyway. Again, I’m not suggesting carrying on a plane.

I am aware of some nationals who are practicing Muslims. These radicals are already being closely monitored by our government, but yes, I can see that possibly happening.
I have no problem with checking the baggage, but when taking such broad strokes on a people who are supposed to be a free people is going beyond security and becoming intrusive. Other countries, who have actually caught a terrorist or two have given up on the technology our government has embraced and yet they seem to be doing a better, or at least as good, a job as we are.

I can’t agree that drugs are a danger to flights. We are not looking for drugs or illegal contraband. That is not what the TSA is supposed to be for, and if we are using these technologies as a crime fighting technique, we are losing our battle with tyrrany.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I didn’t suggest we all carry guns on the plane. That aside, it has been proven that this wouldn’t happen as planes aren’t traveling that fast.

Wati, what wouldn’t happen, the “making a hole in the plane is going to wreck shit” thing? Because, if so, I don’t think that speed has too much to do with that.

These radicals are already being closely monitored by our government, but yes, I can see that possibly happening.

Humor me then, could you give a list of all of those, and, just for the sake of argument, would they also include the “hidden” radicals. (i.e the ones that haven’t really done anything, but would want to?)

I have no problem with checking the baggage, but when taking such broad strokes on a people who are supposed to be a free people is going beyond security and becoming intrusive.

It’s too bad that we couldn’t just X-ray them.

Other countries, who have actually caught a terrorist or two have given up on the technology our government has embraced and yet they seem to be doing a better, or at least as good, a job as we are.

Alrighit, I know that you have a phobia towards posting links, but could you at least list the countries?

I can’t agree that drugs are a danger to flights.

Well if a living thing uses them it might be.

We are not looking for drugs or illegal contraband.

Alright, can you be more specific when you use pronouns, because you’re being exceptionally vague, and it confuses us.

That is not what the TSA is supposed to be for, and if we are using these technologies as a crime fighting technique, we are losing our battle with tyrrany.

Wait how? Also, what?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I didn’t suggest we all carry guns on the plane. That aside, it has been proven that this wouldn’t happen as planes aren’t traveling that fast.

Yea… no. It has to do with pressure differential, not speed.

It’s like claiming that if you stick a pin in a balloon you hold in your hand, the balloon won’t pop, because it’s not moving very fast. It’s very obviously false.

The pressure inside the plane is many orders of magnitude higher than the pressure outside the plane. When you break the cabin seal, you force all the pressure inside the plane to move out through the weak spot. This makes the weak spot sudddenly much larger, as the hurricane of air literally rips the side off. Everyone sitting near that point goes out with the side – as do their seats.

The plane now has a large hole in its side which is putting stress on the framework where there wasn’t meant to be stress, and it is shoved sideways by the blast of escaping pressurised air. They’re not meant to move at weird sideways angles, they are certainly not meant to have rocket nozzles amidships, and the additional stress where the plane is supposed to be using compressive strength, tears the whole thing asunder.

In short, it disintegrates in mid air. That it is only moving six hundred or seven hundred miles an hour has nothing to do with it.

Even though they have done studies on this I wouldn’t want to fire a shot in that small of a space anyway. Again, I’m not suggesting carrying on a plane.

Glad to hear it. Let’s check to make sure, shall we? Make sure nobody is carrying at all. To do that, let’s run them through security.

I am aware of some nationals who are practicing Muslims. These radicals are already being closely monitored by our government, but yes, I can see that possibly happening.

Not just muslims, any radical. Even someone who is suicidal is a risk.

I have no problem with checking the baggage, but when taking such broad strokes on a people who are supposed to be a free people is going beyond security and becoming intrusive.

Then you give terrorists and smugglers a free pass.Providing you keep the object (like a grenade, or a big ass machette, or a pistol) on your person, you are utterly immune to security checks, and can take it right on the plane with you. Doesn’t that sound like such a good idea?

Other countries, who have actually caught a terrorist or two have given up on the technology our government has embraced and yet they seem to be doing a better, or at least as good, a job as we are.

Would you care to name them? I’m aware you will not give sources.

I can’t agree that drugs are a danger to flights. We are not looking for drugs or illegal contraband.

Actually we are. Airport security is also about policing. Planes are a prime target for smuggling. Since we are doing a security scan anyway, we might as well confiscate anything illegal that passes through. Besides, it puts the criminals right off using planes to smuggle their goods.

That is not what the TSA is supposed to be for, and if we are using these technologies as a crime fighting technique, we are losing our battle with tyrrany.

Care to explain how crime fighting is a bad thing, worse, a road to tyranny?

 
Flag Post

But who are we at war with? We are at war with Muslims. I know, you are going to claim it is a small faction, but the fact remains the terrorists are Muslim. So instead of looking for people of Muslim decent, we look for mothers carrying babies with bottles full of milk, old women that have to be helped on the planes, etc.

I agree that anyone should be checked, but I disagree you specifically should look at Muslims. It is discriminaton, no matter if terrorists happen to look like them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I didn’t suggest we all carry guns on the plane.

Not only should we all not carry guns on a plane, no one should carry guns on a plane. With the exception of an air marshal, perhaps. That’s unnecessary and asking for trouble.

 
Flag Post

If you made a hole in the skin, the atmosphere would be gone, but the plane doesn’t disintegrate. I would imagine if you hit a window there would be a lot of problems. When the US started putting Marshals on planes they did this study. They also tried to come up with projectiles that were better for defense rather than a solid projectile that could go through the bad guy and take out a passenger.

From what the rumors are, I don’t know for sure, is this technology does hit you with a lot of some kind of particle that is not supposed to be good for you. X-rays would be a bad thing. But if you only flew once in awhile, they would work.

I couldn’t find a list perse of the countries. I believe the UK was one of them, but don’t quote me. I know there were a few. I did find this link that is kind of interesting.
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/terrorism-how-have-other-countries-handled-it.html

No, this supposed security shouldn’t be abused anymore than it is. What’s next, checking children for the mumps?

How can I confuse an individual with you IQ? :) Well, maybe I can. We are already giving up our rights to privacy in the most intimate way. Now if the TSA expands on this and start going through all of our belongings looking for drugs or other contraband, they are just taking another step in their control of the people who fly. The TSA is not a crime control organization like the local police or even the FBI. To be honest, I don’t think they should exist and control of security should be left to the states, or the airports.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

But who are we at war with? We are at war with Muslims. I know, you are going to claim it is a small faction, but the fact remains the terrorists are Muslim. So instead of looking for people of Muslim decent, we look for mothers carrying babies with bottles full of milk, old women that have to be helped on the planes, etc.

I agree that anyone should be checked, but I disagree you specifically should look at Muslims. It is discriminaton, no matter if terrorists happen to look like them.

So tell me this dark. If we were at war with the Micky Mouse Club and all of the enemy were meeces (Mice), why would we check a 3 year old child and an old woman in a wheelchair? Wouldn’t you look for the meeces?

 
Flag Post

You’re at war with the Muslims…
I’ve never been really good at geography, so help me out here, please: where exactly is that Islam? Or Muslimistan? To be honest, I have never heard of that country, so I’m not 100% sure.



How does a Muslim look like anyway?
Like this?

Or like this?

Maybe like this?

Or like this?

Who of those guys would you search?
Who of them is a representation of the typical Muslim entering a plane to blow it up?

 
Flag Post

EPR, what we are doing over here is checking the children and old women and letting anyone who looks like they might be Muslim go through without stopping them. If a Muslim woman is wearing a Burka, they walk through without the intimate intrusions the rest of Americans must endure. We are not checking those who are most apparent because we don’t want to hurt their feelings.

 
Flag Post

First of all, sources. I don’t know how it is going over there. Inspections based solely on cultural stereotypes are discrimination. No inspections out of fear of being seen as a racists would be a security issue. But You do understand that I don’t take your word for granted on that claim, right?

Secondly, what stops old women from performing terrorist attacks? What stops terrorists from hiding explosives on children, seeing as they are often not searched? The whole point of random inspections is to minimise the holes in the net that big fishes can use to slip through. One of the most reliable sources of big holes are decisions that are based on stereotypes.

And then again you just said that the stereotype solution should be used, which definitely wouldn’t have worked on that gentleman here…

since he looked like a person that day and not like a muslim, whatever a muslim looks like… Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. You know that right?

 
Flag Post

Yes, Islam is a religion. However, we are fighting a people who have traits that can be spotted. When my wife and I were flying home, we were sitting in the airport waiting for a connection. a fella sitting about 6 chairs away was wearing his towel (I don’t know what they are called). So what religion would you think he was?

 
Flag Post

Sikh.
Hindu.
Maybe Muslim.

Did you report him to the security?