Question For Parents

• O-Trap

  

  believer;737694 wrote:I don't have any issues with full body scanners. I DO have issues with thug TSA agents groping 5 year old girls.

  I have an issue with TSA agents groping ANYONE. That was, ultimately, my point.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Otrap, you missed my whole point. The point being - OVERKILL x's eleven billionty
  
  Especially where these rub-downs take place, which is usually right in the middle of the most crowded areas of airports.
  Ptown brings up excellent ideas which would be cheaper (long term), more efficient and less... intrusive.
  
  Overkill =/= overkill.
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;737724 wrote:Otrap, you missed my whole point. The point being - OVERKILL x's eleven billionty

  IF we were to take that to heart, and we were to subject people to being molested only based on our own arbitrary determination that they "look too much like a terrorist" (as if a terrorist has a "look"), and a plane was to blow up from a C4 bomb that had been stuffed under a nun's gown or in a little child's bum ... what then? Do we just say, "Well, we knew there were organized zealots out there trying to find ways to blow up our airliners, and we knew this was a possibility, but we thought it was overkill?"
  
  I'm not saying every single flight is at risk, but let me ask you something. Do you believe that terrorists are still planning on trying to destroy planes if given the opportunity?
  

  CenterBHSFan;737724 wrote:Especially where these rub-downs take place, which is usually right in the middle of the most crowded areas of airports.
  Ptown brings up excellent ideas which would be cheaper (long term), more efficient and less... intrusive.

  How would my idea (which I've now stated three or more times on this thread) be more intrusive? Cameras all over the airline, and multiple well-armed "security" (preferably with spec ops training) on the plane, hired by the airlines themselves.
  

  CenterBHSFan;737724 wrote:Overkill =/= overkill.

  Wait ... now that really did go over my head. LOL!
• I Wear Pants

  Honestly there needs to be a cost analysis done. Just because there is a risk doesn't mean it makes sense to take EVERY possible step to avoid something.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;737738 wrote:Honestly there needs to be a cost analysis done. Just because there is a risk doesn't mean it makes sense to take EVERY possible step to avoid something.

  
  Sure, I'm not saying plan for something that hasn't been a threat in the past, but I'm talking about an entity that we know has been a threat in the past. That's what I'm talking about preventing. Not an unknown, unproven threat. One that has shown an intent to harm, and has succeeded.
  
  It would seem to me that if you know someone has the intent to do you harm ... if you have had examples and experiences with that in the past ... it only seems likely to try to preempt that same threat from doing something in the future.
  
  Not necessarily all threats, but at least that one you know has a history of trying to harm you.
  
  I agree, however, that the current searches are not the way to do it, though.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;737732 wrote:IF we were to take that to heart, and we were to subject people to being molested only based on our own arbitrary determination that they "look too much like a terrorist" (as if a terrorist has a "look"), and a plane was to blow up from a C4 bomb that had been stuffed under a nun's gown or in a little child's bum ... what then? Do we just say, "Well, we knew there were organized zealots out there trying to find ways to blow up our airliners, and we knew this was a possibility, but we thought it was overkill?"
  I'm not saying every single flight is at risk, but let me ask you something. Do you believe that terrorists are still planning on trying to destroy planes if given the opportunity?
  How would my idea (which I've now stated three or more times on this thread) be more intrusive? Cameras all over the airline, and multiple well-armed "security" (preferably with spec ops training) on the plane, hired by the airlines themselves.
  Wait ... now that really did go over my head. LOL!

  1. I don't think we can rely on profiling alone. Do we need to profile? Yep. It should (and just might be) part of the solution.
  2. Perhaps I was reading your ideas (cams, air marshalls, etc.) and inappropriately giving the credit to Ptown (I don't feel like going back and rereading it.
  3. Do I think that terrorists might try to blow up a plane again? Probably. But I also think they might start thinking inside the box and going after essentials, like water plants for example.
  4. Back to airports. Like everybody has discussed before countless times: the very least the TSA could do is to do their groping at the entrances of airports in the huge lobbies, rather than wait till there's hundreds of people crammed into the middle of the airport, which IMO, is pointless.
  5. At what point do we draw the line for preventative safety? Insertions? Hell, they've already got naked scanning and rubbings, that's the logical next step. Would penetration be defended in the name of preventative safety?
  Seriously, all the money the government is spending, all the people that are employed working on this, some of the most thinking and brightest minds.... and this is the best we can do?
  I'm not buying it.
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;737784 wrote:1. I don't think we can rely on profiling alone. Do we need to profile? Yep. It should (and just might be) part of the solution.

  I think if we profile, and that profiling becomes known, it can ... and will ... be exploited the next time someone wishes to do something illicit.
  
  Moreover, I once again ask, who gets to decide who looks "terrorist enough?"
  

  CenterBHSFan;737784 wrote:2. Perhaps I was reading your ideas (cams, air marshalls, etc.) and inappropriately giving the credit to Ptown (I don't feel like going back and rereading it.

  It's okay. I simply don't think ANYONE should be allowed to be subject to these kinds of searches ... ANYWHERE in the airport.
  

  CenterBHSFan;737784 wrote:3. Do I think that terrorists might try to blow up a plane again? Probably. But I also think they might start thinking inside the box and going after essentials, like water plants for example.

  Oh, that wouldn't surprise me. After all, even when they hijacked the planes in 2001, their goal wasn't the airplane, but what they were hitting WITH the airplane. Pretty much something no building can plan for, which is why it does make sense to use when possible.
  

  CenterBHSFan;737784 wrote:4. Back to airports. Like everybody has discussed before countless times: the very least the TSA could do is to do their groping at the entrances of airports in the huge lobbies, rather than wait till there's hundreds of people crammed into the middle of the airport, which IMO, is pointless.

  I don't care where it is. It shouldn't be happening ... to ANYONE.
  

  CenterBHSFan;737784 wrote:5. At what point do we draw the line for preventative safety? Insertions? Hell, they've already got naked scanning and rubbings, that's the logical next step. Would penetration be defended in the name of preventative safety?

  My whole point about saying that all should be searched was on the assumption that ANYONE should be searched. I personally don't think ANYONE should be subject to these kinds of searches.
  

  CenterBHSFan;737784 wrote:Seriously, all the money the government is spending, all the people that are employed working on this, some of the most thinking and brightest minds.... and this is the best we can do?
  I'm not buying it.

  I whole-heartedly agree with this.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;737796 wrote:Moreover, I once again ask, who gets to decide who looks "terrorist enough?"

  It is my understanding that profiling doesn't involve "looks" alone. So, I can't answer your question the way you asked it.
  Racial profiling, yes, that can go on looks alone. And the "birthers" can do that.
• I Wear Pants

  Haha.
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;737840 wrote:It is my understanding that profiling doesn't involve "looks" alone. So, I can't answer your question the way you asked it.
  Racial profiling, yes, that can go on looks alone. And the "birthers" can do that.

  
  Looks, accent, name, anything visibly religious, etc. ... none of those things make you any more or less dangerous, or more or less suspicious. Now, if they go by behavior alone ... I could see something there. I just don't think it wise to focus so much attention on one little segment of the people there that the rest get no attention. If there is any profiling being done, then it's obvious someone still thinks the potential for an attack is there. As such, why focus on what we consider the most obvious when they KNOW we consider it the most obvious and will most likely NOT fall into that scope? It just makes no sense.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;737854 wrote:Looks, accent, name, anything visibly religious, etc. ... none of those things make you any more or less dangerous, or more or less suspicious.

  None of those things make you any more or less dangerous? Perhaps. Suspicious? Sorry...if you fit the profile, I'm going to suspect you of it.
  
  When I fly, I do not see 5 year old Suzie McFly as a potential hijacker. What I DO see at the State College airport are bearded Penn State engineering students, Achmed and his buddy Mohammed, as much stronger possibilities.
  
  Call me racist, bigoted, and narrow minded all you want but if most of us were honest, we all do the same thing. Just a sad reality in a post 9/11 world.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Of course the video is outrageous, if you have to tell a 6 year old you're going to be touching their "sensitive area" in full view of the public, the fact that you are using the back of your hand isn't much condolence.
  
  The video shows not only how invasive the search is, but how arbitrary and utterly pointless it is. It isn't going to catch or stop anyone.
• Glory Days

  

  believer;737898 wrote: When I fly, I do not see 5 year old Suzie McFly as a potential hijacker. What I DO see at the State College airport are bearded Penn State engineering students, Achmed and his buddy Mohammed, as much stronger possibilities.

  
  just because you dont see 5 year old Suzie McFly as a potential hijacker doesnt mean anything. nobody cares what makes you feel safe.
• Belly35

  

  I think we should all fly naked ... if you can't strip down take a train... Just have to be careful of the drop down trays
• O-Trap

  

  believer;737898 wrote:None of those things make you any more or less dangerous? Perhaps. Suspicious? Sorry...if you fit the profile, I'm going to suspect you of it.

  But that's just the thing. Terrorism is terrorism. Middle Easterners are not terrorism. Muslims are not terrorism.
  
  There IS no profile for terrorism, except that it wishes to do harm, and will likely do whatever necessary to accomplish that goal. Meaning, if you profile, the terrorists won't be the ones you're profiling.
  

  believer;737898 wrote:When I fly, I do not see 5 year old Suzie McFly as a potential hijacker. What I DO see at the State College airport are bearded Penn State engineering students, Achmed and his buddy Mohammed, as much stronger possibilities.

  I would suggest that, if we're talking about all beings acting independently, I'd agree, but that'd be because of her age.
  
  Otherwise, no. Since I know that Ahmed and Mohammed are no more likely to be dangerous than any other demographic, I will trust them no more or less than anyone else.
  
  Profiling does nothing but set us up for a classic case of misdirection, like kindergarteners at a magic show. The magician can suck, but if he can get you focusing all your attention one direction, it becomes VERY easy to fool you elsewhere.
  

  believer;737898 wrote:Call me racist, bigoted, and narrow minded all you want but if most of us were honest, we all do the same thing. Just a sad reality in a post 9/11 world.

  Most of us should also recognize that we SHOULDN'T do the same thing, and instead of embracing it, we ought to attempt to discipline ourselves to get past it.
• O-Trap

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;737904 wrote:Of course the video is outrageous, if you have to tell a 6 year old you're going to be touching their "sensitive area" in full view of the public, the fact that you are using the back of your hand isn't much condolence.
  
  The video shows not only how invasive the search is, but how arbitrary and utterly pointless it is. It isn't going to catch or stop anyone.

  Bingo, which was my ultimate point. If these checks were effective, necessary, or not flying in the face of my right to privacy, then everyone should undergo them. Otherwise, NOBODY should undergo them, and we should find effective means that don't infringe on my rights.
  
  I vote the latter.
  

  Glory Days;737906 wrote:just because you dont see 5 year old Suzie McFly as a potential hijacker doesnt mean anything. nobody cares what makes you feel safe.

  Hell, I'm pretty sure that if I was trying to stage a "sneak attack" on an airplane, I would probably want the people on the plane to feel safe. It'd likely make them more vulnerable.
  

  Belly35;737914 wrote:I think we should all fly naked ... if you can't strip down take a train... Just have to be careful of the drop down trays

  Forget everything. I agree with Belly.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;737898 wrote:What I DO see at the State College airport are bearded Penn State engineering students, Achmed and his buddy Mohammed, as much stronger possibilities.
  
  Call me racist, bigoted, and narrow minded all you want but if most of us were honest, we all do the same thing. Just a sad reality in a post 9/11 world.

  
  Careful...don't tell your boss or you will get the "Juan Williams" treatment.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;738061 wrote:Careful...don't tell your boss or you will get the "Juan Williams" treatment.

  Yeah but Juan got promoted to Fox.
  

  Glory Days;737906 wrote:just because you dont see 5 year old Suzie McFly as a potential hijacker doesnt mean anything. nobody cares what makes you feel safe.

  
  I care...and that's all that matters to me.