View Poll Results: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • invasive pat downs

    12 10.62%
  • Non invasive pat downs.

    31 27.43%
  • Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.

    17 15.04%
  • Real strip searches

    11 9.73%
  • Cavity search.

    53 46.90%
  • walking through a metal detector.

    52 46.02%
  • other

    29 25.66%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 22 of 50 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 497

Thread: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

  1. #211
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Again, we're not allowed to bring liquids on planes now because of ONE PLOT (which never even made it to the airport and wasn't going to use flights originating in this country anyway). The TSA is perpetually securing us against the LAST threat. This will ALWAYS be a losing strategy.
    This is simply not factual. It was NOT a single incident. Rather, it was a plot that was discovered, using the actual chemicals, as well as several dozen reports, by airline crews, of suspected dry runs.

    And in any case, these sort of plots are so vanishingly rare that it just isn't worth the hassle anyway. There have been only two terror attempts aboard aircraft in the past 9 years (neither of which were stopped by airport security, and neither of which occurred on a flight originating in the US.) If you want to include this liquid plot which never made it out of the planning phase, wasn't stopped by airport security, and didn't originate in the US either...then that's a total of three terror attempts in the past 9 years. Out of hundreds of millions of flights.
    It would only take ONE successful attack to kill hundreds of people, disrupt our transportation infrastructure (costing billions), and cause significant harm to our economy. These measures have been successful at deterring attacks. And yet, you want to use that as the justification for why they aren't needed. Pretty stupid.

    But oh noes, if we don't have nudie booths in the airports than planes will start dropping out of the sky left and right.
    Oh noes! Someone might see your IMAGE!!! How horrifying!!! See? That tactic works the same directed back at you.

    I didn't ask if there have ever been any women in the history of the world who did something bad. I asked when a woman or child has ever tried to commit an act of terror on an airline. Let's not pretend that terrorists are indistinguishable from everyone else, when this is patently false.
    A woman committed an act of terror in a subway station in Russia. Thus, it is likely that if greater profiling is used, more women will be utilized more often to attack transportation infrastructure as a way of circumventing that profiling. Jihad Jane, for instance, was very active in recruiting "caucasian appearing" muslims for attacks.

  2. #212
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    This is simply not factual. It was NOT a single incident. Rather, it was a plot that was discovered, using the actual chemicals, as well as several dozen reports, by airline crews, of suspected dry runs.
    One incident, regardless of how it was discovered/reported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    It would only take ONE successful attack to kill hundreds of people, disrupt our transportation infrastructure (costing billions), and cause significant harm to our economy.
    The exact same thing could be achieved through a bomb in the airport security line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    These measures have been successful at deterring attacks. And yet, you want to use that as the justification for why they aren't needed. Pretty stupid.
    They haven't deterred anything. Deterrence means preventing people from doing something, not creating a minor inconvenience. No one says "I think I'll blow up an airplane today, but it's too hard." A determined terrorist will just find the weakest link in security. It doesn't stop terrorism, it just stops people from hiding bombs in their underwear on airplanes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    Oh noes! Someone might see your IMAGE!!! How horrifying!!! See? That tactic works the same directed back at you.
    At some point people need to put their foot down and say enough is enough. Security measures have been getting progressively more and more invasive.

    Verifying your identity at the airport - OK, seems like a good idea to me.
    Metal detectors - Probably useless, but I don't have a problem with them.
    Taking your shoes off at the airport - Ridiculous and stupid, but tolerable.
    Federal nudie booths and/or groping - No. Over the line. The TSA has gone too far...to fight something that is not that big of a problem in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    A woman committed an act of terror in a subway station in Russia. Thus, it is likely that if greater profiling is used, more women will be utilized more often to attack transportation infrastructure as a way of circumventing that profiling. Jihad Jane, for instance, was very active in recruiting "caucasian appearing" muslims for attacks.
    You were just arguing that deterring one type of attack is justified even if it merely shifts the risk to other types of attacks, instead of reducing the overall threat of terrorism. Now you're arguing exactly the opposite.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #213
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    One incident, regardless of how it was discovered/reported.
    Do you need assistance? What part of several dozen did you miss?


    The exact same thing could be achieved through a bomb in the airport security line.
    And that may well happen.

    They haven't deterred anything. Deterrence means preventing people from doing something, not creating a minor inconvenience. No one says "I think I'll blow up an airplane today, but it's too hard." A determined terrorist will just find the weakest link in security. It doesn't stop terrorism, it just stops people from hiding bombs in their underwear on airplanes.
    Stopping people from hiding bombs in their underwear is still progress.

    At some point people need to put their foot down and say enough is enough. Security measures have been getting progressively more and more invasive.
    Somehow, they seem less invasive than being killed by someone's exploding toiletries.

    Verifying your identity at the airport - OK, seems like a good idea to me.
    Metal detectors - Probably useless, but I don't have a problem with them.
    Taking your shoes off at the airport - Ridiculous and stupid, but tolerable.
    Federal nudie booths and/or groping - No. Over the line. The TSA has gone too far...to fight something that is not that big of a problem in the first place.
    I love how you attempt to call them nudie booths, when in reality, they are magnetic images. Have you been through this sort of screening?
    You were just arguing that deterring one type of attack is justified even if it merely shifts the risk to other types of attacks, instead of reducing the overall threat of terrorism. Now you're arguing exactly the opposite.
    It is justified and it has reduced the risk of an attack on a flight. I'm cool with minor inconveniences that promote overall safety on flights. I understand that there are other areas of weakness (ports, crops, electronic) that also need to be addressed. It's not an either/or choice.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 11-20-10 at 03:37 PM.

  4. #214
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Somehow, they seem less invasive than being killed by someone's exploding toiletries.
    And but for this program, would that be a huge problem?

    I love how you attempt to call them nudie booths, when in reality, they are magnetic images.
    Not sure what you're getting at here. You can still see plenty, including full dongage.

    Have you been through this sort of screening?
    Not sure how that matters, but yes, I have.

    It is justified and it has reduced the risk of an attack on a flight.
    By how much? Are you saying that the risk of an attack on a flight is now substantially lower than it was 6 months ago?

    I'm cool with minor inconveniences that promote overall safety on flights. I understand that there are other areas of weakness (ports, crops, electronic) that also need to be addressed. It's not an either/or choice.
    When it comes to spending government resources (not to mention lost economic productivity), it is an either/or choice.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #215
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Do you need assistance? What part of several dozen did you miss?
    You said several dozen reports from pilots of dry-runs. I don't really give a damn how many dry-runs or how many different people reported it, it doesn't change the fact that it was a single plot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    And that may well happen.
    So what's your solution for that? Cavity searches before you can enter the airport at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    Stopping people from hiding bombs in their underwear is still progress.
    No, it's not. And I've already explained why and I'm tired of repeating myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    Somehow, they seem less invasive than being killed by someone's exploding toiletries.
    Only to irrational people who are actually worried about that kind of **** in the first place. Your odds of being on a plane that's blown up by terrorists are hundreds of millions to one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    I love how you attempt to call them nudie booths, when in reality, they are magnetic images. Have you been through this sort of screening?
    I've seen the pictures, and it's not hard to understand why people are uncomfortable with them. I have not traveled in the last couple weeks since the nudie booths went into full force, but I will be this week.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux
    It is justified and it has reduced the risk of an attack on a flight. I'm cool with minor inconveniences that promote overall safety on flights. I understand that there are other areas of weakness (ports, crops, electronic) that also need to be addressed. It's not an either/or choice.
    1. This isn't a minor inconvenience. It is an unreasonable search.
    2. This doesn't promote overall safety on flights.
    3. Even if it did, it just shifts the danger zone from the airplane to the security line.
    4. Terror on the airlines is vanishingly rare anyway.
    5. It IS an either/or choice, because taxpayer money is not infinite. The time people are willing to waste on security procedures is not infinite. And the public tolerance for police statism is not infinite. To the extent that we need to focus on conventional terrorism at all (which is an overblown issue altogether), we should be focusing on the weakest links: our ports. Let's worry about that, instead of crawling up every flight passenger's ass with a magnifying glass and wasting a huge amount of time and taxpayer money.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-20-10 at 03:59 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #216
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And but for this program, would that be a huge problem?
    It's definitely an area where Al Qaeda has demonstrated a willingness to go, more than once. Did you miss the stories about the dry runs in airplane lavatories reported by airline personnel?

    Not sure what you're getting at here. You can still see plenty, including full dongage.
    Is this an area of personal insecurity? I certainly don't have a perfect body, but I tend to believe that airport screeners are like gynecologists and proctologists, they get over being titillated by your junk pretty fast.

    And, there are reasons for these full body scans: Terrorists Could Use Explosives in Breast Implants to Crash Planes, Experts Warn - FoxNews.com

    I know you like Fox. Perhaps you'll actually read this link.

    Not sure how that matters, but yes, I have.
    Did you feel dirty and exposed?

    By how much? Are you saying that the risk of an attack on a flight is now substantially lower than it was 6 months ago?
    There are reasons for these screening methods...they are a response to verified intel. When was the last time that liquids/gels were used on a plane? How about a shoe bomb?

    Putting these screening methods in place has eliminated these as possible tactics for Al Qaeda.

    When it comes to spending government resources (not to mention lost economic productivity), it is an either/or choice.
    So is flying, bro. A full body machine is faster/easier/more idiot proof than a metal detector, which isn't going to catch anything that isn't metallic (such as plastic explosives).

  7. #217
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You said several dozen reports from pilots of dry-runs. I don't really give a damn how many dry-runs or how many different people reported it, it doesn't change the fact that it was a single plot.
    Dozens of dry runs = the possibility of dozens of attacks. This ain't rocket science.

    So what's your solution for that? Cavity searches before you can enter the airport at all?
    I'm content with the status quo. No need for slippery slope fallacies here. IF new measures are needed, then that can be discussed if/when that occurs.


    No, it's not. And I've already explained why and I'm tired of repeating myself.
    You can repeat it ad infinitum, the fact remains that you're repeating an opinion. And, it's not a particularly accurate opinion. So, keep saying it, that won't make it truer.

    Only to irrational people who are actually worried about that kind of **** in the first place. Your odds of being on a plane that's blown up by terrorists are hundreds of millions to one.
    It's not just about being caught on that single plane. I was heavily impacted by 9/11, and I didn't die. We all were. So, your argument is fallacious. You're conspicuously attempting to narrow the argument to one which is more easily defended. Still a fail.

    I've seen the pictures, and it's not hard to understand why people are uncomfortable with them. I have not traveled in the last couple weeks since the nudie booths went into full force, but I will be this week.
    Much ado about nothing. Don't ever have a mammogram, you'll die of embarrassment.

    1. This isn't a minor inconvenience. It is an unreasonable search.
    2. This doesn't promote overall safety on flights.
    3. Even if it did, it just shifts the danger zone from the airplane to the security line.
    4. Terror on the airlines is vanishingly rare anyway.
    These are all opinions, not facts. Do you know the difference?

    5. It IS an either/or choice, because taxpayer money is not infinite. The time people are willing to waste on security procedures is not infinite. And the public tolerance for police statism is not infinite. To the extent that we need to focus on conventional terrorism at all (which is an overblown issue altogether), we should be focusing on the weakest links: our ports. Let's worry about that, instead of crawling up every flight passenger's ass with a magnifying glass and wasting a huge amount of time and taxpayer money.
    Then don't fly. The fewer of you people who fly, the fewer TSA agents we need, and the more we'll all save.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 11-20-10 at 05:46 PM.

  8. #218
    Guru
    The Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Dixie
    Last Seen
    11-26-17 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    “Yet you don't care if someone otehr than you has to go through that.” - spud_meister

    Yes, I am offended that everyone has to be a suspect because everyone at the TSA is such a chicken-sh_ _ and won’t profile terrorists.

    “Why do they have to do that? My country doesn't have a monument, so I guess that means that the government isn't mournful.” - spud_meister

    Your country was not the origin of the attacks nor do the majority of people in your country believe that 9/11 was an “inside-job”.

    “How many planes have Muslims used to kill people with since 9/11? That seems to me to say that racial or religious profiling is unnecessary, as the current measures work.” - spud_meister

    Since 9/11? None. How many have tried? I can think of the shoe-bomber and the panty-bomber as two that were caught due more to the vigilance of passengers and not because of any security measures that were in place.

    “And Americans are actively trying to kill Muslims, so that point seems irrelevant.” - spud_meister

    Actually, Americans “actively” have their hands tied behind their backs on the battlefield due to the rules of engagement forced upon them by the Obama administration so we are not “actively” trying to kill Muslims enough…

    …but that’s another debate.
    "Liberalism is a doctrine fostered by a delusional and illogical people and rabidly promoted by the mainstream media and ruling elite which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - unknown

  9. #219
    Guru
    The Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Dixie
    Last Seen
    11-26-17 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    “Why don't you go for a nice run and contemplate the fact that your rage is misplaced?” - Catz Part Deux

    My anger is not misplaced. It is right where it belongs.

    “Why don't you put your wife and child in a burka so that they can't be sexually battered by people staring at them, as well.” - Catz Part Deux

    I would just be happy keeping strangers hands off of them.

    “THis is why your rage is misplaced. Female TSA agents search women & children, not men.” - Catz Part Deux

    This is why you have no idea what you are talking about.

    “WHat do muslims look like, pray tell? Are any of them blond haired and blue eyed?” - Catz Part Deux

    I suspect some are. So what? But when the TSA skips over a man born in Yemen named Mohamad with a one-way ticket and searches and elderly woman in the name of “fairness” then the system is broken.

    “THis isn't about sensitivity. It's about the fact that muslims, contrary to your belief, can look like and/or be caucasians.” - Catz Part Deux

    I get it.

    What you don’t get is that profiling looks for terrorists…not olive-skinned individuals with sheets on their heads.

    Israel is arguably the best in the world at this (they have to be) and they are not looking for weapons, etc. They profile for terrorists…not Muslims.

    “Poor baby.” - Catz Part Deux

    At least I’m not poorly informed.

    If you had any idea you would be angry, too.
    "Liberalism is a doctrine fostered by a delusional and illogical people and rabidly promoted by the mainstream media and ruling elite which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - unknown

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Baron View Post
    Yes, I am offended that everyone has to be a suspect because everyone at the TSA is such a chicken-sh_ _ and won’t profile terrorists.
    It has nothing to do with being chicken****ted, and everything to do with the fact that racial profiling has largely been discredited as a law enforcement technique. It doesn't work. Profiling creates huge blind spots that can then be easily exploited. If you'd bothered to do anything other than kneejerk to your own prejudices and fears, you'd realize this.

    Since 9/11? None. How many have tried? I can think of the shoe-bomber and the panty-bomber as two that were caught due more to the vigilance of passengers and not because of any security measures that were in place.
    The security measures that would have prevented these attacks weren't in place because the threats weren't recognized at that point in time. Now, those security protocols are well-established, and we can assume, since similar strategies haven't taken place since, that they are working.

    What that means is that we have a determined foe who will continue to search out holes in our system that they can exploit, like these:

    Cargo plane bomb plot: ink cartridge bomb 'timed to blow up over US' - Telegraph

    This is no different from any other criminal enterprise. Our tactics have to be flexible and adaptive to respond as new threats are identified.

    Actually, Americans “actively” have their hands tied behind their backs on the battlefield due to the rules of engagement forced upon them by the Obama administration so we are not “actively” trying to kill Muslims enough…

    …but that’s another debate.
    Well, that's because he's a Muslim lover, per you.

Page 22 of 50 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •