So basically you are advocating that we base our entire national security apparatus on what the LAST terrorist did, assuming that the next one will have absolutely zero creativity or flexibility in altering his plans. This is absurd. To the extent that we need to worry about terrorism, we should be putting our resources in the places where future attacks are most likely to occur, not where the last guy found a weakness.
If we've identified a place where a vulnerability exists (i.e., the ability of a terrorist to mix up an explosive chemical cocktail in an airplane lavatory), it would be ridiculously stupid not to protect that vulnerability. We can't always plan for the unknown, but we would be negligent not to plan for the known.
9/11 won't be repeated as has been explained to you before.
This argument? It's a strawman, because I've never argued that 9.11 WOULD BE repeated. I suggested that security screenings for possible explosive devices on the plane are a necessary fact of life at this point in time. I've given you plenty of evidence of why this is the case. Hope that helps you.
As far as "explaining," continued repetition will not make your statements more evidence-based or factual.
Any terrorist attacks will be confined to the people aboard the plane. And even if a plane gets blown out of the sky (which hasn't happened since Lockerbie if I'm not mistaken...and has NEVER happened in the United States) it's one plane out of hundreds of millions.
1) It's a huge assumption that such attacks would be limited to single planes when even 9/11 included multiple targets. Making such assumptions is stupid given what we now know about the M.O. of these organizations.
2) If a simple screening can eliminate the possibility of terrorists to disrupt the air travel industryh for days/weeks/months, it is probably warranted, given the costs of an attack to our entire country.
If you're going to be "heavily impacted" by that, then I suggest you get over your irrational fear of things that are miniscule dangers.
Given that there have been multiple attempts in recent years, these fears aren't irrational. Nice try, but fail. This is also a very poor attempt at an ad hominem. It isn't my fear of miniscule dangers, but a response to the massive financial and personal impacts of such an attack. Another successful series of attacks would be tremendously disruptive to this nation's economy.
Our government would be a lot more effective and save a lot more lives if it devoted more money to, say, improving the safety of automobiles or researching heart disease.
Those issues can and are being addressed by the free market, nor is an automobile accident going to disrupt dozens of industries and millions of people. Whereas, a single targeted airline attack could cause billions of damages. So, scale is important.
But thanks to irrational people like you, we have nudie booths to fight airport terrorists instead. :roll:
Your emotional personal attack at this point is a concession that you cannot argue your case using logic and facts.
And this right here is the problem. You think it's a matter of people being embarrassed of being naked. While I'm sure there is some of that and it's perfectly understandable, the real issue here is the infringement on civil liberties. The particular orifice isn't particularly relevant; I don't want government agencies feeling inside my mouth and nostrils anymore than I want them feeling my groin. I don't want them looking at all the papers in my briefcase anymore than I want them looking under my clothes.
Then let me help you...don't fly. Take the train or drive a car. The convenience and speed of flying is a choice, not a right or entitlement.
Actually, only the first one is an opinion. 2-4 are all facts. It doesn't improve safety, if it did it would shift the risk from the plane to the security line, and terrorist attacks are vanishingly rare.
They're unsubstantiated and skewed...which puts them into the realm of opinion. I think you actually believe that your unsupported opinions are in fact, FACTS. They aren't.
I shouldn't have to give up MY civil liberties just because YOU are irrational and want to feel secure knowing that the TSA reduced your odds of dying in a plane bombing from 0.0000002% to 0.0000001%.
You aren't required to. Don't want to submit to the security screening? Don't fly. It's a choice. You are NOT entitled to air travel.
I'll tell you what. Why don't we have federal agents attach a GPS to your car. No one's forcing you to drive. And if you don't, the more we'll all save on GPS trackers. :roll:
Airplanes aren't your personal property. They belong to private companies, who have a right to request all sorts of things from customers who purchase a ticket to fly on their planes. It's your choice to purchase that ticket, knowing that you will be required to submit to a security screening.
Your argument is a bit like a customer who walks into a restaurant, without shirt or shoes, and demands to be waited on. Private businesses have a right to refuse service to you if you refuse to meet their basic requirements for obtaining the service.
If you don't want to submit to a security screening to fly on Delta, for instance, then consider utilizing the free market to solve your dilemma. Consider pooling your resources with other folks booking a private jet where you won't be subjected to these types of hassles.
http://www.netjets.com/default.asp?campaign=GooglePaid
