Originally Posted By Mr X ***Are you actually suggesting that just because an event has not happened that it precludes it from happening in April 2011 or January of 2013? I hope not*** Go back and read the last few posts again dude, I'm saying no such thing. Gad contends that babies MUST be checked, even though historically they never were and nothing bad resulted, because if they're NOT checked we can expect exploding babies as a result. I simply followed up by noting that Israel, a country who's safety measures are PROVEN to work due to no hijacked planes (and no that doesn't mean it's not possible in future, it simply means that they've been very effective for many decades), don't search babies. If Gad's logic were to apply, it would seem obvious that not searching babies (as in Israel's case) should certainly have lead to an exploding baby flight out of Israel by now.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***///You DO realize that you're much more likely to die in a crash caused by pilot error, don't you?/// Not necessarily---- there is no way to test future odds*** Now you're just being unnecessarily stubborn. Future odds COULD point to flight deaths by supervolcano being the number one cause historically, after Yellowstone blows and takes down a thousand jets at once. But that wouldn't mean that today, statistically speaking, your number two biggest danger in air travel is pilot error.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///So if this is so awfully important, why aren't pilots subjected to breathalyzer tests and psyche screenings on a daily basis rather than checking THEM for bombs./// Because the US gov't has idiots in charge. Pilots should be tested for drugs in their systems and mental stability.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///If Gad's logic were to apply, it would seem obvious that not searching babies (as in Israel's case) should certainly have lead to an exploding baby flight out of Israel by now./// I don't know---maybe, mabe not. But there is a first for most everything so Isreal should check the young too.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Are you actually suggesting that just because an event has not happened that it precludes it from happening in April 2011 or January of 2013? I hope not.<< Think about what you're saying here. No matter what it is, no matter how unlikely or crazy or absurd or expensive, we gotta inconvenience millions of people who get on airplanes, blowing millions of tax dollars we ain't even got, to make sure it doesn't happen. And guess what ... YOU'RE STILL NO SAFER. Just more inconvenienced and deeper in the financial hole. They WILL find a way to hijack or blow up your airplane if they put their minds to it. It's gonna happen sooner or later. And we're going to overreact with even more ridiculous and expensive security measures. I'm not saying throw up your hands and give up. I'm saying get real. And stop being such a dang chicken expecting the government to guarantee that the bad guys won't get your plane. "Oh if I just submit to this ... and this ... and this ... and maybe that (ouch, that smarts!) ... and URRRRRRRGGGGGHHH oh good gosh that hurt .... then I'll be totally safe. Totally absolutely and unconditionally safe. Yep. Uh huh." And the terrorists blow up the airport. Oops! Time for MORE security measures! Have your daughter move over there and have her breasts fondled. The CIA told President Cheney that the terrorists are using booby traps. The heck with that. Back off the invasive security measures and I'll take my chances.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Dude, are you actually saying that people should NOT be concerned about being seen naked or groped?/// I don't know if that was gadzuux's position but it is mine. Safety should trump those irrational feelings. Again, I ask: Are these same people concerned when a medic has them open their legs and examine breasts for safety but yet has a problem when the another does it in the name of safety. Staying alive is the goal either way. Finding an explosive is just a important to me as finding an early malignant cancer.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You know the terrorists have won when even liberals support this crap. All of it is worthless, costs billions of dollars and inconveniences millions of people every year. How often do those assigned to "test the system" get forbidden objects through without being caught? The last data I saw was something like 30%. The body scans may reduce that somewhat, but as the Israeli security expert pointed out there are ways around that also. If the terrorists try often enough they are going to get someone on a plane no matter WHAT we do. The shoe and underwear bombers are evidence of that. I would be fine if we abolished ALL airport security. Even for those flying on 9/11, their odds of dieing in a plane crash were probably less than the odds of getting struck by lightening. The act of living involves some risk... you can't eliminate it no matter what you do. I really could care less about people seeing me naked. In fact if they had an airport where you could totally bypass security by taking off your clothes at the front door and going to your gate naked I'd probably do it just to avoid the TSA garbage. I just think we are wasting massive amounts of money and people's time by the ridiculous security charade at airports. As I said, the terrorists have won.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Safety should trump those irrational feelings.<< Feeling safer after going through TSA **IS** an irrational feeling. And your position is based on irrational fear, no doubt exacerbated by seeing the 9/11 horror show on television ALMOST A DECADE AGO. You're worried about things that (1) are so unlikely that you might as well be scared of alien pod people replacing the stewardesses, and (2) have not been made any more unlikely by all the TSA falderal. I don't care if it's OK with you if they see you naked. Not OK with me, and there's no excuse for forcing me to submit to it. This is (or used to be) America.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I'm for any security measures that they(the gov't)deem necessary./// Not me---NO WAY! I would not go that far at all.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///And your position is based on irrational fear, no doubt exacerbated by seeing the 9/11 horror show on television ALMOST A DECADE AGO./// You are mistaken big time. I had grave concerns about terrorists/bombs on planes in the early '90's when I took my first flight as an adult. In fact I had conversations well before 9/11 about the prospects of some freaked out, deranged or "I'm pissed at the world" suicidal passenger or even an Islamic political activist storming a cockpit(no, I didn't think about box cutters back then) and wreaking havoc. So mawnck, you may be right about the irrational fears but you are most definitely mistaken about 9/11..... I've been a 'worry wart' in the air way before it was en vogue in a post 9/11 environment.
Originally Posted By barboy2 What did not help my fears early on also was the fact that I went through "security" in '97 from San Fran. to Orlando with full diving gear(I rented a car and drove to the Florida Keys and tapped WDW after). Included among my trappings were a diving knife and an air tank. THOSE COMPLETE IDIOTS DIDN'T EVEN CHECK MY AIR TANK TO SEE IF IT WAS FULL AT ****3,100 psi**** A full air tank is like a compressed air bomb which if exploded could blow a monstrous hole in a plane's fuselage.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well excuse me if I'm a pervert who gets off on being fondled by strangers in public. I like to talk to the screeners. "Do you think there's a gun down there? Think it's loaded? Think it might go off if you inspect me? Cause I sure do. Think you'll put me in handcuffs? Maybe tie me up. Oh yeah...."
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> You know the terrorists have won when even liberals support this crap. << I'm more than aware that I'm out of step with current progressive thinking on this one. But then I'm hearing loud complaints on this issue from both sides - each with their own axe to grind. On Fox, they're advocating for "profiling" - picking out the brown ones for special attention. Along with total nonsense about "porno-scanners" and the emotional "scars" that result from these pat-downs. On the left, I'm hearing about government intrusion and civil liberties violations, fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search. My personal opinion doesn't align with either side on this issue - I'm saying that this isn't a big deal, that it's rooted in common sense, and that the image scanners are an improvement over some prior methods, in that it's faster and easier than the wanding and the pat-downs. I'm somewhat surprised at the muted response of many of the posters here - given that this hot-button topic of the day has foamers on the left AND right, I might have expected more people to disagree with me than we've seen so far.
Originally Posted By debtee <I'm saying that this isn't a big deal, that it's rooted in common sense, and that the image scanners are an improvement over some prior methods, in that it's faster and easier than the wanding and the pat-downs.> I agree with you. I also don't understand people saying that Israel does not use the scanners, as if that makes their point? Israel does not follow any security measures, that the rest of the world does. There's just NO comparison. When an El AL flight arrives in Sydney, NO ONE gets near that plane. It has armed guards surrounding it at all times. No airport personnel are allowed near that plane. No freight handlers, no cleaners, no caterers. They have their own team. No other airline in the world does this. Sure it's safer for them but it also costs an incredible amount of money. At the moment, the scanners seem to be the best option. I don't buy into the whole pervert argument. I won't even know if there is a pervert the other side of the scanner. As long as he does his/her job and stops a bomb or a weapon. I once had an airport security guy at SFO sniff inside my shoes that I had taken off, right in front of me. He obviously had some kind of foot fetish, as he was trying to touch my feet ( and other people ) he was extremely creepy! If they stay behind the screen and I can't see them, then that suits me better, as then I don't know about it. Ignorance is bliss!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Sure it's safer for them but it also costs an incredible amount of money*** Don't the scanners cost an incredible amount of money? ***I once had an airport security guy at SFO sniff inside my shoes that I had taken off, right in front of me. He obviously had some kind of foot fetish, as he was trying to touch my feet ( and other people ) he was extremely creepy!*** And yet you say you're fine with the frisking and the groping. You really want someone like *that* touching your kids!?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Thing that really struck me is, Israel doesn't use em. Think about that. ISRAEL doesn't use these things...are they really any good?? Israel doesn't use them because they do comprehensive profiling/interviews with each and every passenger before they board. If you fly El Al from NYC to Tel Aviv, you have to get to the airport 4 hours early. And you're talking about inconvenience? Israel can do this because it is a very small country with a very limited number of international flights. IIRC, there are no internal flights - you can drive from one end to the other in a couple of hours. So for this very limited number of passengers, they can do this. Plus the other things debtee mentioned. Obviously, this wouldn't work with the many hundreds of domestic and international flights we have every day in the US.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Don't the scanners cost an incredible amount of money?<< $250,000 **each** (Canadian) as of April. <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html" target="_blank">http://www.vancouversun.com/tr...ory.html</a> Your tax dollars at "work." We cannot and will not go on wasting tax money like this, guys, no matter how safe it makes you feel.
