• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US 'stopped Dutch installation of full body scanners

And Lowe's is? and what does it have to do with international travel and security?

Lowe's is a Hardware and general Home Improvement store. It is the equivalent to Home Depot or Menards.
 
Does anyone know if Israel uses these scanners? Seems to me that they do a pretty good job.
 
Does anyone know if Israel uses these scanners? Seems to me that they do a pretty good job.
Q&A: Controversial full-body scanners - CNN.com

Where have they been installed?

Full-body scanners are currently being trialed at Manchester Airport in England and Tokyo's Narita Airport in Japan. Amsterdam's Schiphol airport has 15 scanners, which are being drafted into active service, while Israel's Ben Guiron airport is already using them. In the United States, 40 scanners have been installed at 19 airports across the country. Six are used as the primary security check, while 34 are used for secondary, or random checks. More are expected to be installed.
 


It seems that they are pretty effective, I haven’t heard of any concerns coming from the Israelis about them. On another note kinda makes one wonder why these eight republican Senators voted against the screening and explosive detection equipment in July 2007. (Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okl.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ari.)Now it seems that some of them are screeching the loudest….perplexing. :roll:
 
No. Without facts one must speculate, and that is what I did. It is a fully valid reason as it has been used before to block and delay the transfer of "technology" to other countries.

In fact go to

U. S. Bureau of Industry and Security

and you will see what is required to have an export license.... yes, the US has licences on certain goods to be exported.

In fact when IBM sold its PC division to the Chinese, it had to comply with Federal requirements on security at IBM plants in the US where Levono employees were to be stationed. The levono employees had to be housed in separate secure areas of the IBM campus to win approval.

So it is very real when it comes to technology exports from the US.
Like I said, you made things up. The fact you do not understand the concept of making things up certainly explains a lot. :roll:

.
 
Like I said, you made things up. The fact you do not understand the concept of making things up certainly explains a lot. :roll:

.

It is you that dont understand the concept of speculation based on fact and making stuff up. I in no way made up the fact that the US government forbids and tightly controls the export of technology, that is a fact. I speculated that this might be the reason for the US "stopping Dutch installations". That my speculation was wrong does not change the fact that it was speculation based on an actual possibility.

Now making things up is stuff like what the Birther movement does when it makes fake birth certificates... that is making things up.
 
It is you that dont understand the concept of speculation based on fact and making stuff up. I in no way made up the fact that the US government forbids and tightly controls the export of technology, that is a fact. I speculated that this might be the reason for the US "stopping Dutch installations". That my speculation was wrong does not change the fact that it was speculation based on an actual possibility.

Now making things up is stuff like what the Birther movement does when it makes fake birth certificates... that is making things up.
Speculate, conjecture, guess, imagine, presume, suspect, infer, surmise, assume, etc, etc.

Call it what you will, you were still just making things up. :rofl

.
 
Does anyone know if Israel uses these scanners? Seems to me that they do a pretty good job.
They have one freaking airline and they post guards with uzis onboard. Besides, no terrorist in his right mind would try to confront an Israeli head on.
 
That wins the award for most childish way to refer to Obama that I've seen as of yet. Congrats.



If you'd bothered to read the article, you would have learned that that's not even remotely accurate.

Lighten up will ya... it rhymes.

Let's say it's a response for not allowing us to use his real name on this site.

How lame is that?
Cannot use the full real name of someone who has in the past used his full real name?

Chew on that a while.

.
 
Does anyone know if Israel uses these scanners? Seems to me that they do a pretty good job.

Israel uses security profiling, among other things. However, the US could never do that because of feel-good liberals who couldn't conceive of such a thing.
 
Lighten up will ya... it rhymes.

Let's say it's a response for not allowing us to use his real name on this site.

How lame is that?
Cannot use the full real name of someone who has in the past used his full real name?

Chew on that a while.

.

What do you mean we are not allowed to use the name of President Barack Hussein Obama? That IS his name like his opponent's name is John Sidney McCain. Why the fuss over a name?
 
Israel uses security profiling, among other things. However, the US could never do that because of feel-good liberals who couldn't conceive of such a thing.


Considering where the airports at it shouldn’t be to hard to profile. :mrgreen:
 
Considering where the airports at it shouldn’t be to hard to profile. :mrgreen:

But in the U.S., the Democrats (and many Repubublicans) would never consent to the depth of profiling needed though it has proven to be so successful with the Israelis. And before anyone says anything about race, that is only a PART of the security profiling they use. I was listen to BBC on the radio on my way to work a few days ago and they had a security analyst describe in some detail the profiling procedures they use. I was very impressed.
 
But in the U.S., the Democrats (and many Repubublicans) would never consent to the depth of profiling needed though it has proven to be so successful with the Israelis. And before anyone says anything about race, that is only a PART of the security profiling they use. I was listen to BBC on the radio on my way to work a few days ago and they had a security analyst describe in some detail the profiling procedures they use. I was very impressed.

I wouldn’t have a problem with profiling in addition to the scanners, anyone that has a fully loaded adult diaper and wearing Arab headgear gets the full check…..by the TSA checker with the least seniority. ;)
 
I wouldn’t have a problem with profiling in addition to the scanners, anyone that has a fully loaded adult diaper and wearing Arab headgear gets the full check…..by the TSA checker with the least seniority. ;)

Would that headgear be a shemagh, or a fez, or perhaps a kufi? How about a baseball cap? What if he (or she) isn't an arab?:roll:
 
Lighten up will ya... it rhymes.

Let's say it's a response for not allowing us to use his real name on this site.

How lame is that?
Cannot use the full real name of someone who has in the past used his full real name?

Chew on that a while.

.

Either way it's flaming, baiting, and childish. If that's how you want to come across... more power to you.
 
Would that headgear be a shemagh, or a fez, or perhaps a kufi? How about a baseball cap? What if he (or she) isn't an arab?:roll:

I guess I would have to get by with profiling the people that came across with the loaded adult diaper, via the scanner then.:2wave:
 
Lighten up will ya... it rhymes.

Let's say it's a response for not allowing us to use his real name on this site.

How lame is that?
Cannot use the full real name of someone who has in the past used his full real name?

Chew on that a while.

.

This is just pathetic. I could call you the dicksuckoo from Timbuktu and it would make about as much sense and add as much to the debate.
 
This is just pathetic. I could call you the dicksuckoo from Timbuktu and it would make about as much sense and add as much to the debate.

Hey that rhymes...


poetry!!
 
The EU was not blocking it, as anyone who read the link would know. The EU is being pressed to make it mandatory, instead of the current voluntary position, despite some particularly shy individuals' worries. (and American objections.)
 
The EU was not blocking it, as anyone who read the link would know. The EU is being pressed to make it mandatory, instead of the current voluntary position, despite some particularly shy individuals' worries. (and American objections.)
The Airport security is waiting for the EU consensus on the full body scanners that the EU has set for next week, and that is the cause for the delay.
Pure European-Union-styled bureaucracy.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, is the man responsible for introducing scanners. The Department for Transport has claimed it cannot introduce full body scanners without first getting EU approval, and said the European Commission is meeting next week to discuss the issue with member states.

But the Tories and Lib Dems argued that EU approval is not needed where national security is an issue.

Theresa Villiers, the Conservatives’ transport spokesman, said: “If the DfT has been caught napping on getting EU approval for trialling full body scanners, then they will have serious questions answer when Parliament returns in a few days' time.

"EU bureaucracy should not be allowed to slow down our efforts to fully consider all the options when it comes to improving security at UK airports.”
Detroit terror attack: delay over airport X-ray scanners 'risking lives' - Telegraph
 
They say 2008. Not precisely when, but... once Obi from Nairobi took his oath, Obi's administration could have changed the policy.

So... why did Obi from Nairobi not do anything?

Because the President of the United States is Barack Obama. Obi from Nairobi can't even vote.

:lol:
 
The Airport security is waiting for the EU consensus on the full body scanners that the EU has set for next week, and that is the cause for the delay.

Pure European-Union-styled bureaucracy.

So wrong on so many levels. The objections about these scanners has been both locally and pan-European because of the privacy issues.. ironically the same issues that have stopped the implementation of the scanners in all US airports. The Tories and Lib Dems are just using this as an excuse to yet again attack the government and EU, when they know fully well that they too would have "delayed" the implementation because of the issue of privacy. It is ironic that they are now calling for the implementation of these scanners, and yet for the last 5+ years have not utter a word about it.. Why not push for the scanners after the London tube bombings? Or after 9/11? The technology is not "new" after all. Because there was serious and still are serious privacy issues. The Tories and Lib Dems are playing politics as usual.

In fact the "EU Bureaucracy" has been advocating moving along with the scanners along with the parliament, but the objections and delaying tactics of the member states has slowed down any implementation.. because of the privacy fears.


Source is highly biased and has many of its facts wrong, which has already been shown in this thread. Not to mention it would still have not stopped the crotch bomber.

For one, the article mentions nothing on why the scanners were not in place for US bound flights.. because the American's objected to it being used only for US flights.. due to.. privacy fears.

Also it fails to mention the little fact that other than the approval required by local government and the EU, there is an issue with that the airports in question in the UK are privately owned and it is them that have to bear the cost of the 100+k per scanner investment.

It is a typical anti-EU anti-Europe anti-establishment article by the Telegraph and should be taken in that context.
 
Back
Top Bottom