Abolish TSA?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by countezero, Nov 15, 2010.

  1. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I don't care whether the opt out worked or not.

    My point is that we have to stand up to idiotic agencies like TSA now, before we lose any more ground to their moronic way of responding to terror threats. Consider we're still taking off shoes and belts and that tactic was abandoned YEARS ago by the terrorists. Consider, too, that no one terrorist has tried to board a plane at a US airport since 9/11.

    The TSA is a joke, and these new measures are ridiculous.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    If we went back to the limited security measures in place before 9/11, there would still be no more attacks of that kind. Why not? Because people have learned their lesson. A plane full of passengers will no longer sit still and allow hijackers to fly them to their deaths against the side of a building. The hijackers would be scragged, big time! Al Qaeda are not stupid, and the next attack will use a different technique.

    In fact, what the TSA and similar groups are doing, is exactly what Al Qaeda want them to do. Another method of attacking is to attack the economy, and putting barriers in the way of easy travel is a very effective method of attacking the economy. We are doing Al Qaeda's work for them!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    TSA: We promise to scan or touch your Titties, Schlong, and Ass.
    Even if it were, remember the famous quote (which is unattributed, Ben Franklin definitely did not originate it): Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security will end up with neither, and that is exactly what they deserve.

    If we're so worried about reducing risk in America, then why are we focusing on the three thousand Americans who are killed by terrorists every ten years, instead of the one hundred fifty thousand who are killed by drunk drivers in the same time period? We could install a breathalyzer ignition interlock in every car at the factory for a few billion dollars, and it would really work. The War on Islam is costing us trillions of dollars (in addition to destroying what little stability the Middle East ever had, overthrowing the only secular pro-Western government in the region, pissing off one billion Muslims, alienating our allies, and turning the country over to the Homeland Gestapo) and it's not working: We still haven't found Osama, and we've pushed Al Qaeda's headquarters into Pakistan, a country that has nuclear weapons and doesn't really like us very much.
    Why limit that statement to the Titties-Schlong-Ass department? It applies to the entire fucking goddamned government!
    Not to alarm you, but you forgot to mention cargo ships. If you put fully armed nuclear weapons on ten ships and arrange to have UPS pick them up when they reach port and deliver them to a target of your choice in ten different cities, I'll wager that at least two will reach their targets. But don't address one to your city or I won't be able to collect my winnings!

    That was to keep people in. It's not clear that it would be quite as easy to keep people out.
    The best way to stop the drug smuggling that is turning the entire country of Mexico into a giant reenactment of Chicago during Prohibition is to end the New Prohibition.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kathaksung Banned Banned

    Messages:
    235
    This story happened one year ago. I wonder why TSA didn't react to it. Because a machine to investigate passengers' annal still being under reserch? So all that full body screen is only a joke. It can't stop terrorist if they hide the bomb in their bottom. The "see through screen" is just used to intimidate public. Or they force you to go through the "full body scanner" because they invested heavily on the stock of that machine?

    Quote, "Terrorist hid explosives in his bottom

    Suicide bomber Abdullah Hassan Tali al-Asiri attempted to kill a Saudi prince by detonating explosives hidden in his bottom.

    BST 21 Sep 2009
    Al-Asiri, 23, managed to blow himself up in the attack in Jeddah, but his target, Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, escaped with minor injuries.

    Security experts said they have not come across a bomber who has concealed explosives in this way.

    "We've never heard of anything quite like this before," a source told The Sun.

    Prince Nayef is the head of the security service in Saudi Arabia.

    Al-Asiri, who was on a local "Most Wanted" list, arranged a meeting with him after insisting he had turned his back on terrorism.

    By hiding the explosives in his bottom he managed to pass security checks before entering the prince's office.

    It is believed they were detonated electronically.

    Mike Yardley, a weapons expert and former soldier, said: "Hiding it in a body cavity was obviously an attempt to defeat scanners and detectors.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...8/Terrorist-hid-explosives-in-his-bottom.html
     
  8. Z7575 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    68
    Airport Passenger, Strips In TSA Protest !

    At least he is not a woman !!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    huffington post
     
  9. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    I think it's too much like spam to link the source(s) directly- but a search of the internet for "4th amendment underwear" is warranted here.
     
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Now they are talking about randomly searching bags to get on the DC metro, something you used to need a warrant for -- or at least probable cause. The reason?

    The FBI recently entrapped two idiots it convinced to attack the metro, then trumpeted how it averted terror attacks at the same time it bemoaned the metro being a target.
     
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Augh... the US is fracked, isn't it...

    *makes plans to leave... preferably for the moon*
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You guys have too much time on your hands.
    Scanning people before they get on aircraft is necessary as the means to bring down a jet are relatively small and easily concealed on your person.

    This is what brought down a 747 over Scotland.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The explosive device used was concealed in a Toshiba cassette tape player. The explosive material was Semtex, the preferred explosives of terrorist organizations world wide. Until recently, the principal chemical components of Semtex, RDN and PETN, were hard to detect.

    http://francona.blogspot.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-release-of-lockerbie-bomber.html
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    So what?

    I don't think I should have to be searched, excessively, just to travel anywhere in the US. I mean, the entire point of the WOT was to preserve our way of life. Now every time a terrorist sneezes we change every manner of our posture, all after-the-fact, all as CYA.

    Not one terrorist has tried to board a plane in the US, post 9-11, but we are having to be scanned and patted down to prevent them from doing so? None of this is making us any safer. The most recent attacks, which were amateurish and failed to work, came from people boarding planes overseas, where TSA can do nothing.

    If we continue in this needless whack-a-mole fashion, we will end up with a security permiter around every public gathering/transit point in the US.
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Like I care?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html

    Look, I'm a million+ miler on several airlines and I fly all the time and I have no problem at all with the TSA's very thorough procecures that leads to the peace of mind while travelling that I won't end up on a guided missile into a building or blown out of the sky by a small piece of semtex.

    The argument that we haven't had one since 9/11 is the dumbest one I've heard.

    The hijackers ran trial runs prior to 9/11 and knew they could bring on the very lethal box cutters and that the cabin door would open shortly after getting to crusing altitude so the pilot could go to the bathroom or get a cup of coffee.

    Now the door is never opened without a physical barrier in place and has been strengthened can't be breached and the chance of getting any kind of knife on board is quite remote, and trial runs would show that the system is secure.

    But without the day to day due dilligence then of course the system would be re-targeted.

    Oh, and the door mods apply to all planes flying into the US, so yes, the TSA can do something, even for flights originating overseas.

    Arthur
     
  15. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Well put. The suggestion of perfect security by the industry is a monstrous scam, and a boon to authoritarianism. There will always be unlimited ways for intelligent and ruthless people to cause great mayhem wherever energy and people are concentrated, and whatever the appearance of a practical "perimeter".
     
  16. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    The problem with the anti-drug initiative is that drug prohibition is just as wrong headed as alcohol prohibition, especially when you're dealing with a drug as relatively innocuous as pot. We should just legalize pot already and decriminalize just about everything else. It would defund criminal networks all over the world while simultaneously allowing us to stop wasting time, effort and money to prevent a victimless crime.

    As for the TSA, get rid of it. I never thought it was a good idea in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  17. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    It's not about what you mind/don't mind. Preference has nothing to do with this, nor should it, because you could never please anyone.

    The issue is about the tension between safety and the expectation of privacy. You claim you get "piece of mind" by these procedures. I would argue you're just confused. TSA and pat-downs can do nothing to prevent a "guided missile". Someone can drive up to the edge of any airport in the world and fire one at your plane.

    As for Semtex and other explosives, you seem to be ignoring the fact that in the people trying to get an explosive on board are all doing so in overseas airports where there isno TSA and no pat-downs, so again, TSA is not making you an iota safer with these new procedures.

    In fact, the TSA cannot point to one violent incident or terror attack it has prevented with anything it has done, post 9-11.

    Why? It's a fact. And it's one I believe is based on our beefing up airport security and installing cockpit doors, etc. It's simply too hard to pull the kind of shenanigans that were pulled back then now. But the procedures in place several years ago, if paired with some smart profiling, will deter most terror attacks. This business of removing shoes and standing around to be scanned will not.

    This is bait and switch. We are not talking about cockpit doors. We are talking about the insanity at airport gates: Taking off shoes, belts and now being patted-down or scanned. Where does it end?
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, but as the link I posted show, you are in a small MINORITY of people.

    8 out of 10 people agree with me.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html

    As far as overseas, they are working on that:

    http://www.tsa.gov/approach/harmonization.shtm

    Finally, there are, compared to domestic flight volume there are far fewer people flying into the country, most come from countries with similar security systems that we use and they all go through customs upon first entry to the US, so none of them are getting on my domestic plane flight without both them and their bags being looked at.

    So, while still not 100%, that's not the point, what they are doing, does make me feel that the system is safer.

    And since I fly nearly every week, I'm all for it.

    Arthur
     
  19. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    My solution is quite simple. I do not fly to the U.S, unless my livelihood is at stake (I don't fly unless I'm told I must by my boss).

    My relatives must all come to Canada to visit me. They hate losing their rights when doing so, but not as much as me, after all, they decided to be Americans.

    I have not flown to the U.S since 2003, I used to go at least once a year previous to that and often twice a year. I would drive across , but not in my own car as I have heard horror stories of Border pricks damaging your car and you get no compensation.

    Nothing tells you, you are entering a police state like a crotch grab from a fat man.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Horsepucky.
    There are at least 300 million border crossings each year between just US and Canada and Mexico. Cars are not being damaged as a result of this.

    I travel nearly every week by air and never has someone grabbed my crotch.

    Indeed, I've been physically inspected just once since 9/11 and that was relatively soon after 9/11, and in doing so, they did not do anything remotely like grabbing my crotch.

    More than that, I work with a lot of people who travel by air every week and I know of none of them that wants to go back to the pre-TSA days.
    Yes the TSA had some stumbles when it first got going, but today it is far more efficient and the screening far more effective (IMHO) than what we had before the TSA.

    Arthur
     
  21. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I have no trouble flying Canadian domestic or international with the exception of the U.S. I'm very glad for you that you have never had any problems.
     
  22. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I could care less.

    I could care less. I mean, you are familiar with the fallacy called the appeal to popularity, right?

    We cannot securitize other countries, nor is it our job, too.

    Um, it's about 5,000 times slower than pre-9/11 and it's a royal pain in the ass.

    This is utter malarky. And I wager you have less rights in Canada than you do in the US.
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Same here.
    Not in this case, since the POPULACE travels by air nowadays and so they have experienced this and thus their opinion of what they want is very much important to this issue.

    Actually it is something we can do as far as demanding an adequate level of security they perform on aircraft/passengers that we then let fly into OUR airspace as well as the condition/design of the plane.

    Um, no it's not, and since I fly nearly every week and through dozens of different airports I'm quite aware of the delay at each of them. When TSA first took over there were LONG delays, particularly out of any large airports that had a single point of entry to the terminals, like Hartsfield, but these Airports have redesigned the screening area and there are far more lines with screeners such that the delay now is the same as it was before 9/11, but done with a much higher degree of professionalism.

    http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/thnksgvng_wait_times.shtm

    The net is TSA appears to me to be doing a good job and is clearly not going away and apparently most of us are quite happy with that.

    Arthur
     

Share This Page