Airports are becoming frightening.

[Hoodie]

this is the quote i was looking for earlier:

 

"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

 

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html

 

however, let me add that israeli airports also do a lot of other nasty stuff like car searches and racial profiling, so it's not like their airports just have the old metal detector and x-raying luggage system.

[Guest Deep Fried Everything]

Also you can't seriously know with certainty terrorism is not a threat. Before 9/11 statistically it was considered "unthinkable" that 9/11 could happen. I'm not defending the government, but I'm also not assuming I know everything.

 

the government is wrong about a lot of things ,clearly; i mean, they DO run the TSA. there were obvious warning signs that slipped through the cracks portending the very event of 9/11, remember?

 

I'm simply confused on liberals priorities these days. Nudity doesn't bother me, the biggest wealth gap since right BEFORE the great depression does. Thats something that has the potential of causing GLOBAL damage... yet my thread got one response yesterday, while this rights violated stuff gets pages. Now if they started putting these scanners anywhere like shopping centers etc... then I would have a problem... but as of now, this just seems like a more effective proof positive way of checking for dangerous bombs/guns on planes. Sure its highly unlikely it will happen, but maybe thats because the security in airports have gotten so rigid, that its basically suicide to try and pull it off these days. Is that really all that bad?

 

if you'd have a problem with them being put in shopping centers, how does that differ in any way, shape, or form to their being present in airports? because you don't happen to have to pass through airports frequently, but because you shop frequently? it's called a slippery slope. why not require all entrances to shopping malls have metal detectors? someone could just as well walk in strapped up with nitroglycerin, pop up next to me at orange julius, and kiss hundreds of lives away in an instant during the xmas shopping season. invasion of privacy does not equal greater safety. there's a good way to beat any system.

 

and furthermore, you're making a colossal judgement in favor of the competence of the govt. in saying the systems currently in place, rigid though they are, are foolproof and that it is indeed impossible to put together an attack on airplanes/airports. just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean it is effective, and my main complaint is that it's OBVIOUSLY a HUGE waste of money, my money. you want to waste money on this shit, payroll, equipment, etc, donate your money directly to the TSA. it's now just another self-sustaining bureacrazy (sic intentional) siphoning off funds from the average us taxpayer which could be put to much better use.

 

effective proof-positive way of checking for dangerous bombs/guns? guns are metallic, a metal detector would certainly suffice, no? (cue exception, etc etc) again, if it doesn't bother you because you're not affected, just remember: opting out isn't an option for everyone. though i suppose if everyone were to boycott airports we could take back our rights (lol).

[Siegecow]

I know plenty of ways you can get killed in a vehicle while wearing a seatbelt. Does that mean seatbelts are a waste of money and time?

 

The problem with security is that 99.9998% of the time it seems like isn't doing anything. It's just an impedence. Seatbelts mostly just restrict movement when in cars, and many of us go through life without ever needing them, but you wear them because .00002% of the time you will be annhilated (OR WORSE) without them. It's really really easy to take these things for granted.

 

(no this is not an excuse to be helmet-wearing hypochondriacs)

[karmakramer]

Also you can't seriously know with certainty terrorism is not a threat. Before 9/11 statistically it was considered "unthinkable" that 9/11 could happen. I'm not defending the government, but I'm also not assuming I know everything.

 

the government is wrong about a lot of things ,clearly; i mean, they DO run the TSA. there were obvious warning signs that slipped through the cracks portending the very event of 9/11, remember?

 

I'm simply confused on liberals priorities these days. Nudity doesn't bother me, the biggest wealth gap since right BEFORE the great depression does. Thats something that has the potential of causing GLOBAL damage... yet my thread got one response yesterday, while this rights violated stuff gets pages. Now if they started putting these scanners anywhere like shopping centers etc... then I would have a problem... but as of now, this just seems like a more effective proof positive way of checking for dangerous bombs/guns on planes. Sure its highly unlikely it will happen, but maybe thats because the security in airports have gotten so rigid, that its basically suicide to try and pull it off these days. Is that really all that bad?

 

if you'd have a problem with them being put in shopping centers, how does that differ in any way, shape, or form to their being present in airports? because you don't happen to have to pass through airports frequently, but because you shop frequently? it's called a slippery slope. why not require all entrances to shopping malls have metal detectors? someone could just as well walk in strapped up with nitroglycerin, pop up next to me at orange julius, and kiss hundreds of lives away in an instant during the xmas shopping season. invasion of privacy does not equal greater safety. there's a good way to beat any system.

 

and furthermore, you're making a colossal judgement in favor of the competence of the govt. in saying the systems currently in place, rigid though they are, are foolproof and that it is indeed impossible to put together an attack on airplanes/airports. just because it's a pain in the ass doesn't mean it is effective, and my main complaint is that it's OBVIOUSLY a HUGE waste of money, my money. you want to waste money on this shit, payroll, equipment, etc, donate your money directly to the TSA. it's now just another self-sustaining bureacrazy (sic intentional) siphoning off funds from the average us taxpayer which could be put to much better use.

 

effective proof-positive way of checking for dangerous bombs/guns? guns are metallic, a metal detector would certainly suffice, no? (cue exception, etc etc) again, if it doesn't bother you because you're not affected, just remember: opting out isn't an option for everyone. though i suppose if everyone were to boycott airports we could take back our rights (lol).

 

I think there is a big difference between going to a shopping mall and the airport. One requires preparation and scheduling in advance... the other can happen on a whim and lets face it is more frequent for the average person by far.

 

What Im saying is that if anyone of you were representing the democratic party in the white house as president, that you'd want to do anything in your power to prevent the deaths of hundreds maybe thousands of american lives (no im not condoning you allow torture, which is very ineffective at getting accurate intelligence). You'd also understand that any "light hearted" approach to terrorism is political suicide for you and your party. If your job is to hopefully make as much positive change while in the white house as you can, allowing a terror attack in these times would end your presidency and your parties dominance, destroying all hope for real progress. Theres a lot of major problems facing our country... and theres a lot of complexities to these problems.

 

I guess this all comes down to your feelings on the government. Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? What motivations do you think the Obama administration has in continuing the Patriot Act and doing this airport stuff? If there is no real threat, then why increase the deficit with un-necessary spending? Wouldn't the best political move be to to decrease military spending, decreasing the deficit, give back more civil rights by ending the Patriot Act, and keep the country safe?

 

The non-transparency is definitely a problem, and it leaves us thinking the government is up to no good. But I think there are a lot more complexities going on behind close doors that make our perspective a bit pointless. How do you run a government that has so royally fucked up in the past in terms of Middle Eastern policy? You're bound to get some blow back from it, which by the way won't encourage people into believing the truth but instead they will soak up all the fear they can manage and point their finger at the "current" governments failure or other religions. 9/11 set this country back a great deal and because of its nature (being the first major attack on US soil) it can no longer be politically put aside as "unthinkable"...

 

This is the world we live in. Real threat or not, our government is simply reflecting its people. And the only way for any president to shift the US away from the right/fear is to improve the economy and our security. Its sadly just gonna take time. Luckily I can't afford a plane ticket anywhere

 

[jules]

I can imagine docking in India...

 

ugh sounds sandy and uncomfortable.

[Guest mafted]

will they let you wear a parachute, like underneath a jacket? that could be comforting. of course, you'd have to blow one of the hatches or something and suck a few people out with you, but whatever.

[keltoi]

I can imagine docking in India...

 

ugh sounds sandy and uncomfortable.

 

lol and unhygenic.

[Guest Deep Fried Everything]

I think there is a big difference between going to a shopping mall and the airport. One requires preparation and scheduling in advance... the other can happen on a whim and lets face it is more frequent for the average person by far.

 

What Im saying is that if anyone of you were representing the democratic party in the white house as president, that you'd want to do anything in your power to prevent the deaths of hundreds maybe thousands of american lives (no im not condoning you allow torture, which is very ineffective at getting accurate intelligence). You'd also understand that any "light hearted" approach to terrorism is political suicide for you and your party. If your job is to hopefully make as much positive change while in the white house as you can, allowing a terror attack in these times would end your presidency and your parties dominance, destroying all hope for real progress. Theres a lot of major problems facing our country... and theres a lot of complexities to these problems.

 

...

 

I guess this all comes down to your feelings on the government. Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? What motivations do you think the Obama administration has in continuing the Patriot Act and doing this airport stuff? If there is no real threat, then why increase the deficit with un-necessary spending? Wouldn't the best political move be to to decrease military spending, decreasing the deficit, give back more civil rights by ending the Patriot Act, and keep the country safe?

 

...

 

This is the world we live in. Real threat or not, our government is simply reflecting its people. And the only way for any president to shift the US away from the right/fear is to improve the economy and our security. Its sadly just gonna take time. Luckily I can't afford a plane ticket anywhere

 

 

i fail to see your difference between shopping centers and airports; some people take hours to get ready just to leave the house period! but i digress.

 

i wish for the government to change or effect changes in many ways aside from a complete strip-down(hehehehe)/re-configuration of the tsa, but oh that status quo... so very hard to make a change. and it's not only about perceived safety; anyone would be villainized (is that a word??) if they were to suggest such changes to the tsa, as it does provide lots of jobs, etc, etc, not to speak of the *actual utility of all those jobs..

 

and the beat goes on..

[awepittance]

luckily at least a bunch of airline employees (over 2,000) of them are taking a stand against the heavy alternative groping procedure where they touch your genitals (this is if you refuse a body scan)

 

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures

[Hoodie]

if the tsa actually did "give up" and go back to its old system (which isn't that old, full body scanners were maybe introduced last year?) then i am confident there would be a "terrorist attack" via airplane. but that's just the conspiracy theorist in me talking.

[awepittance]

What motivations do you think the Obama administration has in continuing the Patriot Act and doing this airport stuff? If there is no real threat, then why increase the deficit with un-necessary spending? Wouldn't the best political move be to to decrease military spending, decreasing the deficit, give back more civil rights by ending the Patriot Act, and keep the country safe?

 

there are questions i would genuinely be curious about 10 years ago, but look at the history of the United States. We will never decrease military spending, it takes the ultimate priority in everything we do. You can question why this is but it's simply the truth. Will we decrease security precautions? no. We will never get those rights back, they are gone forever. I hate to be 'cynical' but i'm probably right. There are many conflicts of interest at play to remove the spectre of 'scary arab terrorists' from frightening the populace.

There was really only a 10 year gap in between our War on Communism and our War on Terrorism. It was a convenient new boogie man to keep the populace inline.

[awepittance]

if the tsa actually did "give up" and go back to its old system (which isn't that old, full body scanners were maybe introduced last year?) then i am confident there would be a "terrorist attack" via airplane. but that's just the conspiracy theorist in me talking.

 

there is too much money involved in this scanner sales , i don't think they will ever revert back to an old system. At most they are giving to give you a choice between the two, and the alternative choice will always be worded in scarier terms. They specifically tell you to go in a private room to be given a 'thorough pat down' it is conveyed through that wording that the patdown will be embarrassing enough you wont want to do it in public...

[Hoodie]

for boxing day, who says that my rights will never be violated:

 

 

i'm sure that if granny's can, mine can too.

[Hoodie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlXPIgwSKIk#t=0m25s

[lumpenprol]

i'm generally with karmakramer on this one (though I didn't read the whole thread). The governments are welcome to do some sort of passive non-physically-harmful scan on me at airports. Certainly preferable to them groping me, and I presume it's much faster. Plus I think it's kind of fun to force someone to look at me "naked."

 

They just need to make them more fun, like those "pfft pfft" air jet bomb detection devices. They should give you a printed copy of your scan at the end with a "thanks for visiting ____ airport!" in comic sans on it.

[jules]

lol the comic sans would be great especially if its written over exposed genetalia

[karmakramer]

hoodie I understand why you don't want to be touched by non-college graduate airport security losers... so why not get scanned instead.

[J3FF3R00]

DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw&feature=player_embedded

I'm definitely far from being a Ron Paul fan but I agree with him completely on every thing he says there.

[SR4]

DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw&feature=player_embedded

I'm definitely far from being a Ron Paul fan but I agree with him completely on every thing he says there.

 

 

 

i want to agree in theory, but lets face it folks. we ARE cattle. those in power owe NOTHING to you, and they will take whatever they want when they want it. deal with it. live a happy life so that when they choose your time to go, you'll go with no regrets. if i were you, and you truly want to be "free" to some laughable extent, then start kissing ass and climbing the political ladder now. there is no such thing because we as a society have determined it to be so. deal with it...and who knows, maybe you'll live through this age and have a chance to start over. but its doubtful. enjoy slavery. you don't really have any other option.

[J3FF3R00]

It just infuriates me that in the UK and France, if the government raises college tuition or the retirement age, the people get pissed and burn shit.

Here, people just let everything have their way with them.

 

This body scanning / crotch grabbing thing is LUDICROUS in my opinion.

I'm a huge, Obama-supporting liberal but this shit is WAY too much.

It really is molestation and people should put an end to it, whether it is in the name of "security" or not.

[SR4]

thousands of people have already tolerated it. one congressman has decided to speak out against it.

 

 

well done. the revolution is here.

[J3FF3R00]

[karmakramer]

Im starting to change my mind a little bit after seeing that video where the dude is told to leave and then is in some sort of violation and has a 10,000 lawsuit. Clearly this system is just gonna cause more complications and waste... Hoodie I apologize :)

[Siegecow]

It just infuriates me that in the UK and France, if the government raises college tuition or the retirement age, the people get pissed and burn shit.

Here, people just let everything have their way with them.

 

This body scanning / crotch grabbing thing is LUDICROUS in my opinion.

I'm a huge, Obama-supporting liberal but this shit is WAY too much.

It really is molestation and people should put an end to it, whether it is in the name of "security" or not.

 

So why arent you getting pissed and burning shit if youre so infuriated? Are you just gonna sit there and let those airports have their way with you? Go be productive and vandalize and destroy property so the government will learn not to fuck with you. It really worked great for the uk and france, got those laws changed lickety-split.

[jules]

why not just have a raging hard-on and make like you are enjoying it. make the groper uncomfortable. turn the tables on those bastards.