0bama's latest campaign ploy

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy#post_3383012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy#post_3382905
That's why we have marshals flying on planes now. Someone pull a box cutter with them on board, and they wouldn't make it past first class.
You don't have to practically strip someone down to their skivvy's to find a box cutter these days. That was simply laziness on the person running the scanner. It was an oversight. Unfortunately they went from one extreme to another to provide 'safety' for today's passengers. Could someone get to a pilot today with a box cutter? Not likely. After 9/11, the pilots lock themselves in behind a solid door once they pull from the gate. NO ONE gets in or out unless there's a confirmation. That procedure doesn't require me to get a 'pat down' before entering the plane. If that one procedure was in in place and strictly enforced prior to 9/11, it's very possible that event wouldn't have ever happened. If some nutcase stood up today with a box cutter in their hand threatening to slit the throat of another passenger, I'd laugh, stand up with my laptop power cord, and proceed to beat the idiot senseless. That power cord has about a one pound transformer on the end of it with a 6' cord. I guarantee you I could do some damage to his head or body before her could get close to me with that 1" blade.

Wow......it is late...will adress this later...but there is so much pomp and naivity in this post regarding a situation as you have mentioned.
Pomp and naivity? Wow, big words for you. So you're saying that if the pilots had sealed themselves into the cockpits of the 9/11 planes, and refused under any circumstance to open the door to two or three guys holding passengers hostage with box cutters, the terrorists would still succeed in taking control of those planes?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by deejeff442 http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy#post_3382940
i just heard yesterday someone was trying to get into the cockpit and the marshal stopped him after the second try.so seems to me he got past first class.he told the stewardess he thought it was the restroom and tried to head but the door open.
Did he get into the cockpit? No. Why? Because the pilots refused to open the door. The marshal ended up stopping him right? Guess he must have been seated in the back of the plane. If that guy would've pulled a weapon of any kind out to 'persuade' the pilot to open the door, I guarantee the marshal would've shot the guy from wherever he was standing inside the plane.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy#post_3382824
Minimum deterrent? Try useless deterrent. Look what they allow through the airport security gates these days. Ninety-eight percent of flyers these days carry either a laptop, smartphone, Ipod/MP3 player, or all three. All you do with those devices is throw them in some plastic bin, and they are run through an X-Ray machine to look for anything "suspicious". You don't think some terrorist couldn't fashion some sort of explosive to look like a cell phone or laptop battery, and stick it inside of that device and walk it right through? How well do they really inspect checked-in luggage? Fill a shampoo bottle full of a liquid explosive, rig some sort of detonator to the cap, and use that cell phone you carry onto the plane as a transmitter. Sounds a little "McGyverish", but bottomline if a terrorist really wanted to blow up a plane, they'd have multiple ways of succeeding.
No, the TSA is too busy patting down and frisking babies and old ladies in wheelchairs. Now those are some REAL suspicious individuals...
Nah, the fun stuff would be these. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7510350/Terrorists-could-use-exploding-breast-implants-to-blow-up-jet.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy#post_3382844
Wouldn't bother me. I just love taking off my shoes, my belt, my watch, my wedding ring, emptying my pockets, pulling out my quart-sized plastic bag with all my travel-sized toiletries, and my laptop, stuffing them in three or more gray plastic bins, waiting my turn, get the option to either stand with my legs spread apart and have some machine buzz me with radiation, or even better yet, have someone 'touch my junk' with a smile on their face (I get to say "Wait a minute... Ahhhh. Was it good for you? Do you have a cigarette?) then do the reverse and put everything back on, repack my carry-on, then finally go sit down in some uncomfortable chair for 1 1/2 hours because I was told I had to be at the airport at least two hours before my flight because of said previous security screening....
Never mind. That's the most enjoyable part of my trip...

I like it, I sit down, grab a beer and check out all the hot chicks walking by. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383046
Pomp and naivity? Wow, big words for you. So you're saying that if the pilots had sealed themselves into the cockpits of the 9/11 planes, and refused under any circumstance to open the door to two or three guys holding passengers hostage with box cutters, the terrorists would still succeed in taking control of those planes?
Be hard to take over a plane if you couldn't get into the cockpit...

 

[mantisman51]

Naivete? I've forgotten? Okie doke. 1) Air marshals. 2) Reinforced cockpit doors. 3) Watch list. 4) Billions spent on counter-terrorism intelligence and FBI. Nope, there is nothing more than the over-invasive TSA making flying safer than pre-9/11. I'm glad all these invasive precautions stopped the shoe and underwear bombers! Oh wait, they didn't! It was passengers on the planes. As you were saying Darth? Oh yeah, I've forgotten 9/11.

 

[scsinet]

Regarding pat-downs and security screenings...
Can someone name even one instance where a terrorist was foiled by security screeners at an airport? I'm not talking about finding someone with something they were not supposed to have, I'm talking about an incident where an invidual was detained due to controband and it was later shown that the individual intended to use that object to somehow harm a flight?
I can't think of one, but it would be interesting to find out if have been incidents.
Here's the problem as I see it... it's ultimately nothing more than an (inadvertent or otherwise) endeavor to reduce the rights of law abiding citizens.
Imagine yourself as a terrorist, looking for a way to blow up a plane. To do so, you need to get your explosives onto the plane. What are they checking? For metal? Okay. I'll build it with no metal, or so little it won't trip the detector. Are they checking what liquids I have? Nope. I'll use liquid explosives. He gets through.
Now, they start checking/limiting liquids. Are they checking shoes? Nope. Okay, I'll put it in my shoes. He gets through.
Now, they start checking shoes. Are they X-raying my bag? Yep. Okay so no bag. Hmm... they won't see it in my underwear... he gets through.
So now we pat people down... see the pattern here? If they check shoes, then they don't use shoes. If they are patting down, then they don't use underwear. The problem is that they know our security procedures, so they know what NOT to do in order to avoid detection.
The next thing is that someone will hide an explosive in... umm... an orifice. So now what? Body cavity searches for all? What about surgically implanting it in your body? Why not.. you're gonna die anyway.
What I'm saying is that our security procedures are driving the evolution of terrorist techniques to a point where we will no longer be able to effectively screen for them, period. The terrorists are not evolving for no reason, they are evolving because we are forcing the process through reactive techniques. Ironically, the pursuits of terrorists are also eroding at our freedoms, the very thing many of them hate so much, through invasive pat downs and other security procedures.
In the end, what we need to be doing is finding ways to implement security differently. Background checks. Watch Lists. Behavioral profiles (one way tickets, luggage, cash payments, etc), and other such initiatives. Many will scream profiling... but in the end, that's what security is.

 

[brianbeme80]

I hate safety.

 

[reefraff]

The boxcutter deal was something that could only work on one occasion. So simple to deal with but who would have thought? That is what is needed now, people not trying to figure out how to prevent the same thing from happening again but someone to anticipate the next method.

 

[darthtang aw]

Pomp and naivity?  Wow, big words for you.  So you're saying that if the pilots had sealed themselves into the cockpits of the 9/11 planes, and refused under any circumstance to open the door to two or three guys holding passengers hostage with box cutters, the terrorists would still succeed in taking control of those planes?
 
Don't need to control the vehicle to create terror.......there are many forms of terror........don't need to get in the cockpit at all to create terror............one box cutter on 12 different planes would be enough to cause great amounts of terror in this country.......federal marshal would not be able to stop it.
There was one attempted shoe bomber...faileed...by luck...but...does this mean we ask people to stop removing their shoes?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383391
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383046
Pomp and naivity? Wow, big words for you. So you're saying that if the pilots had sealed themselves into the cockpits of the 9/11 planes, and refused under any circumstance to open the door to two or three guys holding passengers hostage with box cutters, the terrorists would still succeed in taking control of those planes?
Don't need to control the vehicle to create terror.......there are many forms of terror........don't need to get in the cockpit at all to create terror............one box cutter on 12 different planes would be enough to cause great amounts of terror in this country.......federal marshal would not be able to stop it.
There was one attempted shoe bomber...faileed...by luck...but...does this mean we ask people to stop removing their shoes?
Read SCSI's comment to explain all your theories...
If they put a different Marshal on each of those planes, you don't think each one could stop their respective "Box Cutter Terrorist"? We've had two or three screwy attempts by people to either try to open the cockpit door, or even the main door in the last week. Why they did what they did hasn't been explained yet. But I haven't heard anyone screaming hysterically "We're being attacked again!". Instead, it's "Looks like they grabbed yet another whacko on a plane. Ho Hum. What time is my flight?"

 

[crimzy]

It pains me to say this but Darth and some others on that side are 100% right. I'm so tired of people complaining about rigid airport security. Do you think that terorists have not contemplated placing explosives in children's clothing or on a wheelchair? At what point did the constitution guarantee that we all have the right to fly without the inconvenience of security? Truth is, I hate flying, but if you are going to complain about having to endure security on a plane with me, then we do have a problem.... I don't really want you on my plane.
Also, be aware, that the appearance of security is as effective as the security measures themselves. Random strip searches or random planes with Marshall's aboard probably wouldn't catch much if the terrorists were still focused on planes. Don't underestimate the deterrent effect.
The whiny citizens who complain about the inconvenience of security on a plane, where hundreds or thousands of lives could be threatened, are pathetic. And to suggest that the TSA agents are getting some perverted "jollies" from searching you... come on, have most of you seen yourselves lately?
That is all for now...

 

[darthtang aw]

It pains me to say this but Darth and some others on that side are 100% right. I'm so tired of people complaining about rigid airport security. Do you think that terorists have not contemplated placing explosives in children's clothing or on a wheelchair? At what point did the constitution guarantee that we all have the right to fly without the inconvenience of security? Truth is, I hate flying, but if you are going to complain about having to endure security on a plane with me, then we do have a problem.... I don't really want you on my plane.

Also, be aware, that the appearance of security is as effective as the security measures themselves. Random strip searches or random planes with Marshall's aboard probably wouldn't catch much if the terrorists were still focused on planes. Don't underestimate the deterrent effect.

The whiny citizens who complain about the inconvenience of security on a plane, where hundreds or thousands of lives could be threatened, are pathetic. And to suggest that the TSA agents are getting some perverted "jollies" from searching you... come on, have most of you seen yourselves lately?

That is all for now...
Wow...my favorite lawyer is back.....still playing the singl game...how are the kids? Get hit by anyambulances lately trying to recruit new clients?

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383428
Wow...my favorite lawyer is back.....still playing the singl game...how are the kids? Get hit by anyambulances lately trying to recruit new clients?
Kids are awesome, despite my best efforts. My oldest is starting kindergarten in the fall. I'm still whoring around... exhausted Michigan so I've decided to go national. Haven't been hit by an ambulance yet but I'm still trying.
How's life in Darthland? How are your wife and my "other" kids?

 

[reefraff]

Crimzinal!!!
Weren't you thinking about heading south at one point?

 

[bigarn]

until the eyes move i refuse to accept it's really crimzy. to much weird shit going on these days, just ask osama ..

 

[darthtang aw]

Kids are awesome, despite my best efforts.  My oldest is starting kindergarten in the fall.  I'm still whoring around... exhausted Michigan so I've decided to go national.  Haven't been hit by an ambulance yet but I'm still trying. 
 
How's life in Darthland?  How are your wife and my "other" kids?
 
Since michigan now has a population of 2......I am not surprised. We openned another business (he, we are in a recession....got a great idea...let's expand) wife is good.....she got over the rash you gave her. You are behind on your payment arrangement by the way.
Your kids...well sally still has nightmares from walking in on you during some strange shower ritual...she wont talk about it much. Little johnny is the same.....they say unfortunantely he inherited his dads genes..meaning even plastic surgery wont help. Tne good news is he is still following his acting dream and landed two roles....he will play the elephant man on broadway (director is stoked as he is saving money on a make up artist) and they are remaking the movie mask...cher is in it again.....your son will play her son........
Darth (eminem) Tang

 

[crimzy]

Crimzinal!!!

Weren't you thinking about heading south at one point?

Yes I was. Even got lucky and passed the Florida Bar. But alas, x-wifey likes child support too much to let me take the kids. So I'm just hanging here getting rich off the misfortunes of fellow Michiganders. Besides, I just love those midwest girls.

 

[crimzy]

Kids are awesome, despite my best efforts.  My oldest is starting kindergarten in the fall.  I'm still whoring around... exhausted Michigan so I've decided to go national.  Haven't been hit by an ambulance yet but I'm still trying. 
 
How's life in Darthland?  How are your wife and my "other" kids?
 
Since michigan now has a population of 2......I am not surprised. We openned another business (he, we are in a recession....got a great idea...let's expand) wife is good.....she got over the rash you gave her. You are behind on your payment arrangement by the way.
Your kids...well sally still has nightmares from walking in on you during some strange shower ritual...she wont talk about it much. Little johnny is the same.....they say unfortunantely he inherited his dads genes..meaning even plastic surgery wont help. Tne good news is he is still following his acting dream and landed two roles....he will play the elephant man on broadway (director is stoked as he is saving money on a make up artist) and they are remaking the movie mask...cher is in it again.....your son will play her son........
Darth (eminem) Tang
Wasn't I agreeing with you just awhile back??

 

[scsinet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383391
Don't need to control the vehicle to create terror.......there are many forms of terror........don't need to get in the cockpit at all to create terror............one box cutter on 12 different planes would be enough to cause great amounts of terror in this country.......federal marshal would not be able to stop it.
Precisely.
Arguably, the security measures themselves are a form of the terrorist organizations accomplishing what they want.
It's very simplistic to look at terrorism as "blowing up planes" or "killing innocent Americans." However, as horrible, reprehensible, and tragic as these events in and of themselves are, they are only the means of terrorism. The ends of terrorism is the disruption of our way of life, the establishment of fear as part of our lives (hence the word... terrorism), and the impeding of our freedoms. It's our freedoms that the terrorists hate, and the erosion of our freedoms are handing them victories.
Our own social and political standards stand in the way of us being able to deal with terrorism directly. When we bust into terrorist sponsoring nations, people get their shorts in a wad over how we are attacking an innocent nation, or otherwise second guess our resolve. When we use statistically backed information to narrow our lookout for terrorist suspects, people scream "profiling."
Ultimately, I think most would agree when looking at it from this angle that terrorism, and the fight against it, is a paradox - a paradox that must be carefully managed, because one aspect of the paradox that we have is control over just how far it escalates. We can be sure that if we escalate, so shall they. There comes a point when we need to say "enough is enough, we will not bend and we will not be afraid." The question of the day is "when is that time?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383417
It pains me to say this but Darth and some others on that side are 100% right. I'm so tired of people complaining about rigid airport security. Do you think that terorists have not contemplated placing explosives in children's clothing or on a wheelchair? At what point did the constitution guarantee that we all have the right to fly without the inconvenience of security? Truth is, I hate flying, but if you are going to complain about having to endure security on a plane with me, then we do have a problem.... I don't really want you on my plane.
Also, be aware, that the appearance of security is as effective as the security measures themselves. Random strip searches or random planes with Marshall's aboard probably wouldn't catch much if the terrorists were still focused on planes. Don't underestimate the deterrent effect.
The whiny citizens who complain about the inconvenience of security on a plane, where hundreds or thousands of lives could be threatened, are pathetic. And to suggest that the TSA agents are getting some perverted "jollies" from searching you... come on, have most of you seen yourselves lately?
That is all for now...
The answer is not to just eliminate airport security screenings, and your point that terrorists are not above placing explosives in childrens' clothing, for instance, is correct. It's also not your right to fly, as is an often heard argument. I should mention that it IS your right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, but since you are not forced to walk into that security line, I doubt that reasonably applies. Arguably, many people are forced to fly for all practical purposes, since our society has made at least occasional flying almost a way of life. That's neither here nor there. You won't hear me complaining about how it's my "right" per say not to be searched, when I stepped into the security line on my own free will, but you will hear me say it's unfortunate that it is happening because it's the wrong approach.
The assertion that the deterrent is effective is plain false (of course that's IMO) in regards to terrorism, particularly Muslim extremists, when examining the resolve of the terrorists. If men are willing to kill themselves in the process of committing these acts, then their resolve is far beyond what any deterrent will effectively stop. All the deterrent does is drive the evolution of methods to the point where we can no longer stop it using these conventional methods.
Consider this scenario: Let's say that somehow we managed to create a screening procedure that made it impossible to get contraband onto airplanes. Terrorists will simply evolve. Perhaps they will start taking bombs into sports stadiums. Consider a crowded sports stadium. Spread throughout the crowd are 19 terrorists, the same number as 9/11, each one carrying a bomb. They detonate. Do you think that they can kill more than 3,000 people? Probably, especially if they positioned themselves near support columns, etc. So we institute these procedures at sporting events. Now it's impossible to get contraband into those events, but at the cost of those erosions of freedoms at those events. So they go somewhere else. How about a dirty bomb in the middle of a major city? What then? Random searches in the streets? Point is, simply being reactive to security threats will not stop those with such strong resolve.
Security is a very comforting term. Obama in particular knows that Americans love to hear the word "security," and by and large, we as a nation seem all to happy to hand over our freedoms and liberties in the name of it. In regards to airport security, the sad fact is that the terrorists have the upper hand. They are allowed to be proactive, by evolving their methods to circumvent our reactive security. The sad fact is that we are handing over our freedoms and liberties - and therefore handing a victory to the terrorrists, in exchange for a false sense of security.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383462
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/385623/0bama-s-latest-campaign-ploy/20#post_3383450
Crimzinal!!!
Weren't you thinking about heading south at one point?
Yes I was. Even got lucky and passed the Florida Bar. But alas, x-wifey likes child support too much to let me take the kids. So I'm just hanging here getting rich off the misfortunes of fellow Michiganders. Besides, I just love those midwest girls.
Yeah, my son is paying his hex way too much for his 3 so she can sit home on her fat butt. I feel for ya.

 

[darthtang aw]

 
Precisely. 
Arguably, the security measures themselves are a form of the terrorist organizations accomplishing what they want. 
 
It's very simplistic to look at terrorism as "blowing up planes" or "killing innocent Americans."  However, as horrible, reprehensible, and tragic as these events in and of themselves are, they are only the means of terrorism.  The ends of terrorism is the disruption of our way of life, the establishment of fear as part of our lives (hence the word... terrorism), and the impeding of our freedoms.  It's our freedoms that the terrorists hate, and the erosion of our freedoms are handing them victories. 
 
Our own social and political standards stand in the way of us being able to deal with terrorism directly.  When we bust into terrorist sponsoring nations, people get their shorts in a wad over how we are attacking an innocent nation, or otherwise second guess our resolve.  When we use statistically backed information to narrow our lookout for terrorist suspects, people scream "profiling." 
 
Ultimately, I think most would agree when looking at it from this angle that terrorism, and the fight against it, is a paradox - a paradox that must be carefully managed, because one aspect of the paradox that we have is control over just how far it escalates.  We can be sure that if we escalate, so shall they.  There comes a point when we need to say "enough is enough, we will not bend and we will not be afraid."  The question of the day is "when is that time?"
 
The answer is not to just eliminate airport security screenings, and your point that terrorists are not above placing explosives in childrens' clothing, for instance, is correct.   It's also not your right to fly, as is an often heard argument.  I should mention that it IS your right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, but since you are not forced to walk into that security line, I doubt that reasonably applies.  Arguably, many people are forced to fly for all practical purposes, since our society has made at least occasional flying almost a way of life.  That's neither here nor there.  You won't hear me complaining about how it's my "right" per say not to be searched, when I stepped into the security line on my own free will, but you will hear me say it's unfortunate that it is happening because it's the wrong approach. 
 
The assertion that the deterrent is effective is plain false (of course that's IMO) in regards to terrorism, particularly Muslim extremists, when examining the resolve of the terrorists.  If men are willing to kill themselves in the process of committing these acts, then their resolve is far beyond what any deterrent will effectively stop.  All the deterrent does is drive the evolution of methods to the point where we can no longer stop it using these conventional methods.
Consider this scenario:  Let's say that somehow we managed to create a screening procedure that made it impossible to get contraband onto airplanes.  Terrorists will simply evolve.  Perhaps they will start taking bombs into sports stadiums.  Consider a crowded sports stadium.  Spread throughout the crowd are 19 terrorists, the same number as 9/11, each one carrying a bomb. They detonate.  Do you think that they can kill more than 3,000 people?  Probably, especially if they positioned themselves near support columns, etc.  So we institute these procedures at sporting events.  Now it's impossible to get contraband into those events, but at the cost of those erosions of freedoms at those events.  So they go somewhere else.  How about a dirty bomb in the middle of a major city?   What then?  Random searches in the streets?  Point is, simply being reactive to security threats will not stop those with such strong resolve. 
 
Security is a very comforting term. Obama in particular knows that Americans love to hear the word "security," and by and large, we as a nation seem all to happy to hand over our freedoms and liberties in the name of it.  In regards to airport security, the sad fact is that the terrorists have the upper hand.  They are allowed to be proactive, by evolving their methods to circumvent our reactive security.   The sad fact is that we are handing over our freedoms and liberties - and therefore handing a victory to the terrorrists, in exchange for a false sense of security. 
 
 
Very solid points. And very well put. I can agree with all of this. However it is a catch 22. If we don't ask you to take off your. Shoes....ameasure that is proven to deter, what is the alterfnative?