New Security Screening "Procedures" At Airports.

• I Wear Pants

  That would work too and would shut down travel just as much.
• isadore

  ptown_trojans_1;569891 wrote:Moderator note: This is towing the line here of personal attacks, so I suggest ending all calls to posters calling them "anti-American" or "Imperialist".
  
  Stick to the TSA program, no personal attacks.

  are exact quotes said by the person, uncut with citations to the thread and number where they were said direct attacks. Is quoting what a person said considered to be a personal attack?
• isadore

  ptown_trojans_1;569906 wrote:Or, just explode yourself at the airport while waiting in line.

  does not seem to be their preference
  but you do get shoot outs at the airport like the LOD massacre.
• I Wear Pants

  So guns should be banned too because terrorists use them.
  
  Actually, the internet should be illegal as well because it allows the terrorists to communicate.
  
  Right Isa?
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;569899 wrote:I'm interested in your views on the use of cluster bombs. I'll make my point after I know your views.
  
  Anyway, I still don't see how these new TSA regs are going to be particularly effective. If I'm a terrorist I just shove some explosive up my ass or swallow it now. Voila! Got around these security measures!

  I believe this:
  
  Cluster Munitions Policy Released
  
  
  Today the Department of Defense released a newly approved U.S. cluster munitions policy. The United States believes that the new policy will provide better protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure following a conflict, while allowing for the retention of a legitimate and useful weapon.
  
  Recognizing the need to minimize the unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure associated with unexploded ordnance from cluster munitions, the secretary of defense has approved a new policy on cluster munitions intended to reduce the collateral effects resulting from the use of cluster munitions in pursuit of legitimate military objectives. The new policy is the result of a year-long Department of Defense review of cluster munitions.
  
  Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat. They provide distinct advantages against a range of targets, where their use reduces risks to U.S. forces and can save U.S. lives. These weapons can also reduce unintended harm to civilians during combat, by producing less collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure than unitary weapons. Because future adversaries will likely use civilian shields for military targets – for example by locating a military target on the roof of an occupied building – use of unitary weapons could result in more civilian casualties and damage than cluster munitions. Blanket elimination of cluster munitions is therefore unacceptable due not only to negative military consequences but also due to potential negative consequences for civilians.
  
  Post-combat, the impact of cluster munitions is limited in scope, scale and duration compared to other explosive remnants of war (ERW). According to the Feb. 15, 2008, State Department white paper (“Putting the Impact of Cluster Munitions in Context with the Effects of All Explosive Remnants of War”), in 2006 fewer than 400 casualties were attributable to cluster munitions out of a global total of 5,759 reported for all ERW.
  
  A key facet of the DoD policy establishes a new U.S. technical norm for cluster munitions, requiring that by the end of 2018, DoD will no longer use cluster munitions which, after arming, result in more than one percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments. Additionally, cluster munitions sold or transferred by DoD after 2018 must meet this standard. Any munitions in the current inventory that do not meet this standard will be unavailable for use after 2018. As soon as possible, military departments will initiate removal from active inventory cluster munitions that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. These excess munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity. Effective immediately through 2018, any U.S. use of cluster munitions that do not meet the one percent unexploded ordnance standard must be approved by the applicable combatant commander. Previous DoD policy required military departments to design and procure “future” (after 2005) submunitions to a 99 percent reliability rate, but did not address use and removal of current munitions.
  
  The new policy is viewed as a viable alternative to a complete ban proposal generated by the Oslo Process in Dublin, Ireland, last month. The new policy serves as the basis for the U.S. position in negotiations toward an international agreement at the U.N. Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW) that began on July 7. The United States has called for the completion of a new cluster munitions protocol by the end of the year. The CCW, unlike the Oslo process, includes all of the nations that produce and use cluster munitions, making any agreement reached there much more practically effective.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;569927 wrote:So guns should be banned too because terrorists use them.
  
  Actually, the internet should be illegal as well because it allows the terrorists to communicate.
  
  Right Isa?

  I realize that you feel that there are some people who despite what I think, are not such bad guys even though they oppose America who should be able to be armed in airports and on planes. I disagree.
• Swamp Fox

  So if the TSA employees who conduct these screenings to insure our safety were paid more, the "searches" would become searches due to the increased respect earned through being paid more professionally? Does anyone out there realize how completely stupid this sounds?
• I Wear Pants

  isadore;569942 wrote:I realize that you feel that there are some people who despite what I think, are not such bad guys even though they oppose America who should be able to be armed in airports and on planes. I disagree.

  First you deliberetly took my comment out of context. I did not say or imply that terrorists or anyone should be allowed to have weapons on airplanes or in airports.
  
  Secondly you didn't answer the question. Should guns be banned because terrorists may want to, and have in the past, used them in airports?
• isadore

  I realize you consider the use of "brutal tactics" by al queda and other such organizations acceptable as a way to oppose the United States. But I dont feel that way. and I do believe TSA should use metal detectors, body scanners and when necessary pat downs in order to prevent guns, knives, explosives and other weapons from being brought on planes. Experience has shown that not exercising needed procedures has lead to the deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  isadore;569916 wrote:are exact quotes said by the person, uncut with citations to the thread and number where they were said direct attacks. Is quoting what a person said considered to be a personal attack?

  
  Yes, watch yourself.
  Stick to the topic and not personal quotes.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  isadore;569920 wrote:does not seem to be their preference
  but you do get shoot outs at the airport like the LOD massacre.

  
  True. But, al Qaeda, pick your subset, is innovative and I would not be surprised if they tried something.
  
  The odd thing is, it is almost like a viscous cycle as in sometimes al Qaeda will get ideas from statements or fears from U.S. policymakers or reports. So, if we say hey this is a weakness, they may suddenly come up with an idea on how to attack it.
• I Wear Pants

  isadore;570068 wrote:I realize you consider the use of "brutal tactics" by al queda and other such organizations acceptable as a way to oppose the United States. But I dont feel that way. and I do believe TSA should use metal detectors, body scanners and when necessary pat downs in order to prevent guns, knives, explosives and other weapons from being brought on planes. Experience has shown that not exercising needed procedures has lead to the deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens.

  
  Where did I say I approve of Al-Queda's tactics?
  
  Hint: I didn't and I'd appreciate if you'd stop insinuating that I am a terrorist or somehow benefit from terrorism.
• isadore

  ptown_trojans_1;570079 wrote:Yes, watch yourself.
  Stick to the topic and not personal quotes.

  interesting system, quoting someone's own words in their entireity is considered a personal attack.
  an opinion they have expressed on this website.
  hell even when it includes citations that show where to locate the exact source. statements that reflect on the person's statements on this thread.
  a basic tool in debate forbidden
• I Wear Pants

  
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Oh, Lord! Pants!
  
  haha!!!
• isadore

  searches done away with
  bin laden's fantasy comes true a clear path onto every American flight
  an unhindered trip heaven and 72 virgins for every al queda neophyte.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;570086 wrote:Where did I say I approve of Al-Queda's tactics?
  
  Hint: I didn't and I'd appreciate if you'd stop insinuating that I am a terrorist or somehow benefit from terrorism.

  probably get me writen up or banned or something but since you asked

  I Wear Pants wrote:So we have the right to just run roughshod over anyone and they are automatically the bad guys for using gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight. We are too large an enemy for almost any single country to fight. Is everyone just supposed to bow to our will then?"

  #65 “Nobody is winning in Afghanistan-General McChrystal. 5/17/2010. 11:42 PM
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  isadore;570102 wrote:interesting system, quoting someone's own words in their entireity is considered a personal attack.
  an opinion they have expressed on this website.
  hell even when it includes citations that show where to locate the exact source. statements that reflect on the person's statements on this thread.
  a basic tool in debate forbidden

  
  In your case, yep.
• I Wear Pants

  isadore;570127 wrote:probably get me writen up or banned or something but since you asked
  
  
  #65 “Nobody is winning in Afghanistan-General McChrystal. 5/17/2010. 11:42 PM

  No where did that say I approve of their tactics. Reading comprehension fail.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;570136 wrote:No where did that say I approve of their tactics. Reading comprehension fail.

  
  P_T I was asked for this explanation.
  
  Well lets see
  There only real way to fight is to use guerilla and or brutal tactics.
  We are too big to fight any other way.
  We expect them to bow down to us.
  And using those tactics does not necessarily make them bad guys.
  That is pretty sympathetic.
• I Wear Pants

  Where did I say that I approve of their tactics or actions Isa? It's a pretty simple question.
• isadore

  that statement is an endorsement of their actions
  claimiing they have no alternative
  only thing according to you available
  rather than bowing down the US
  its there
  
  and given those views it is hardly a surprise you would oppose methods to prevent attacks on American airlines
• I Wear Pants

  No that isn't an endorsement of their actions or intentions. It's just an acknowledgement of what I think is likely their thought processes.
  
  Again, please stop calling me a terrorist or terrorist supporter.
• isadore

  the statement is given completely in the quote.
  when the thread is checked does not reflect your present interpretation of it.
  there is no such context for the statement.
  
  #65 “Nobody is winning in Afghanistan-General McChrystal. 5/17/2010. 11:42 PM
  
  the context is reflected by this statement you made on the thread
  "We are the closest thing left to imperialists."
  General McCrystal Thread, 5/17201 11:14 PM
  
  but dont worry p_t will come to your rescue.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  isadore;570254 wrote:the statement is given completely in the quote.
  when the thread is checked does not reflect your present interpretation of it.
  there is no such context for the statement.
  
  #65 “Nobody is winning in Afghanistan-General McChrystal. 5/17/2010. 11:42 PM
  
  the context is reflected by this statement you made on the thread
  "We are the closest thing left to imperialists."
  General McCrystal Thread, 5/17201 11:14 PM
  
  but dont worry p_t will come to your rescue.

  
  This is irrelevant to the thread. Move on or I will shut the thread down.