"We will not rest"

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3197973
Basically rich tourists, American citizens, and people that have a confirmed background check. We spend more time on background checks selling people a .22 at Walmart than we do giving them full access to the country for Cristsake.
This guy was allowed on a plane only because it would have offended people not to let him on. That is the ONLY reason he was on the plane, to avoid offending people.

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3198141
Wow. I guess you chose to assume what I posted instead of actually reading it.
I suggest a background check for foreigners wanting to enter the country and you call me a racist. Nice.
I mentioned the 'race card' due to this statement of yours:
"This guy was allowed on a plane only because it would have offended people not to let him on. That is the ONLY reason he was on the plane, to avoid offending people."
The kid was a black Nigerian. How else was I supposed to interpret the word 'offended'?
You also made this statement:
"Basically rich tourists, American citizens, and people that have a confirmed background check. We spend more time on background checks selling people a .22 at Walmart than we do giving them full access to the country for Cristsake."
How is this statement equate to "a background check for foreigners wanting to enter the country "?
And again, how will all these backgrounds checks be paid for? Our taxes, airfare increases? If you don't want to take the risk, DON'T FLY.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3198197
So you are saying we shouldn't fly if we don't want to become a victim but if the plane is blown out of the sky the wreckage has to land somewhere. Not flying isn't a safeguard.
How is it paranoia if people want to take steps to prevent people coming into the country known for a fact to want to cause mass casualties on the citizens of this country. It's about time people who think as you do wake up to the fact this is war, not a social issue. There is going to be a level of inconvenience involved. I am pretty cool with laying the majority of that on the people who fit the profile of a terrorist rather than a 9 year old kid or a 70 year old grandmother just so it doesn't look like we are basing it on ethnicity or religion other than Christian. Interesting how the ACLU gets their panties in a wad if we aren't sensitive enough in dealing with Muslim terrorist but don't give a damn when a citizen who happens to be a Christian has their rights trampled on.
So now we should expect airfares to climb over 200% because you're afraid a piece of plane will fall on your head?

PARANOAI WILL DESTROY YA!!!

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198435
And again, how will all these backgrounds checks be paid for? Our taxes, airfare increases? If you don't want to take the risk, DON'T FLY.
Simple ,we just roll the cost into the health care bill coming out of congress.This will kill two birds with one stone,(a) it will pay for background checks.(b) if you are injured,maimed,or become ill during a terrorist attack you will be covered......

This is what separates one side from the other.One side will pinch penny's on national security in a split second but wont bat an eye at spending trillions of dollars so little Johnny dosent have to go to the ER for a common cold. Its a bit hypocritical or just flat out ridicules to complain about spending a fraction of the amount of money on national security and not bat an eye at a trillion dollar plus health care nightmare bill.
Is common sense is gone?
If so ,just give every passenger a handgun with one round and instructions to fire at the passenger next to you if he/she moves moves a muscle.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198436
So now we should expect airfares to climb over 200% because you're afraid a piece of plane will fall on your head?

PARANOAI WILL DESTROY YA!!!
Heyyyyyyyy!!! How about a airline industry takeover???? Huh?
Just for awhile at least ,you know until the airline industry can figure this thing out.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198435
I mentioned the 'race card' due to this statement of yours:
"This guy was allowed on a plane only because it would have offended people not to let him on. That is the ONLY reason he was on the plane, to avoid offending people."
The kid was a black Nigerian. How else was I supposed to interpret the word 'offended'?
I didn't know he was black. I don't see how that makes a difference. People get indignant when they are turned away. The Prisident of Mexico called us all racists when we wanted to stop illegal border crossings. If it's racist to want to know who is entering our country then I guess that's what I am.
You also made this statement:
"Basically rich tourists, American citizens, and people that have a confirmed background check. We spend more time on background checks selling people a .22 at Walmart than we do giving them full access to the country for Cristsake."
How is this statement equate to "a background check for foreigners wanting to enter the country "?
The part where I say people that have a confirmed background check. Apparently you stopped reading before you saw that. I also said American Citizens, apparently you also missed that one. So, by process of simple elimination, anyone that not a US citizen would be a foreigner, right? I think they should be checked before getting on a plane entering the US. Why is that such a problem? Do you not see any need to know who is entering our country? What part exactly DID you read?
And again, how will all these backgrounds checks be paid for? Our taxes, airfare increases?
Well, I would suggest the foreigners that want to get here pay for the background check. Or is that too offensive for you? We don't want to offend anyone by turning them away.
If you don't want to take the risk, DON'T FLY.
I see, so everything is fine. We shouldn't bother with a discussion because apparently you can't handle talking about it. Just stick your head back in the sand and forget I said anything. You seem to believe that if it can't be perfect then we shouldn't bother trying to improve anything.

 

[darthtang aw]

Bang, it is just easier to call you a racist. That is standard debating practice now for some. See by switching topic to your "possible" racist views and making that the topic, Bionic no longer has to debate the validity of any of your points, muchless read your points....

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198435
And again, how will all these backgrounds checks be paid for? Our taxes, airfare increases? If you don't want to take the risk, DON'T FLY.
Nice mentality. How will all the DWI checkpoints be paid for? If you don't want to take the risk of getting in an accident with a drunk driver DON'T drive.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198431
So how is Bush's "War On Terror" going these days? I recall a few of you here claiming our success in Iraq is the reason there's been no attacks on US soil. Yeaaaa, it's working out great. And please don't give me the "The terror attacks started as soon as Obama came into office" mantra. Case in point, this kid got his visa on Bush's watch.

Had this kid's father went to our embassy and reported him on Bushes watch? I think not. That was while team Obama was in place. Exactly when did this guy finally do something to place him on the radar screen?
How many times during the Clinton administration were US interests hit by serious terrorist attacks? I believe it was 4. How many during Bush? I'd say the war on terror was pretty effective.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198436
So now we should expect airfares to climb over 200% because you're afraid a piece of plane will fall on your head?

PARANOAI WILL DESTROY YA!!!
par·a·noi·a [ pàrrə nóy ə ]
noun
Definition:
1. distrust: extreme and unreasonable suspicion of other people and their motives
9-11 hijackers
The Shoe Bomber
The Hanes Bomber
But yes, our concerns are completely unfounded

 

[reefraff]

Concerned about terrorists then Don't fly. That worked well for everyone working in the World Trade center September 2001.

 

[kingsmith]

lets not forget the airline business model More time grounded=less profit, an industry that is already hurting for fuel prices(even those that hedged are past that cushion) being slowed down even more by security and less business from fears, objections or just avoiding the hassle anybody smell another industry collaspe

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3198489
lets not forget the airline business model More time grounded=less profit, an industry that is already hurting for fuel prices(even those that hedged are past that cushion) being slowed down even more by security and less business from fears, objections or just avoiding the hassle anybody smell another industry collaspe

Yep, that's a valid downside that needs to be weighed heavily.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3198489
lets not forget the airline business model More time grounded=less profit, an industry that is already hurting for fuel prices(even those that hedged are past that cushion) being slowed down even more by security and less business from fears, objections or just avoiding the hassle anybody smell another industry collaspe

The airline industry has been in collapse mode since the internet took off. Business travel is basically what drove the airline industry and with net meetings and teleconferences replacing face to face meetings the loss of business travel has really taken a toll.
Fear will drive away a lot more air travelers than inconvenience will.

 

[kingsmith]

Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3198489
lets not forget the airline business model More time grounded=less profit, an industry that is already hurting for fuel prices(even those that hedged are past that cushion) being slowed down even more by security and less business from fears, objections or just avoiding the hassle anybody smell another industry collaspe

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3198506
The airline industry has been in collapse mode since the internet took off. Business travel is basically what drove the airline industry and with net meetings and teleconferences replacing face to face meetings the loss of business travel has really taken a toll.
Fear will drive away a lot more air travelers than inconvenience will.
I agree

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3198456
I didn't know he was black. I don't see how that makes a difference. People get indignant when they are turned away. The Prisident of Mexico called us all racists when we wanted to stop illegal border crossings. If it's racist to want to know who is entering our country then I guess that's what I am.
The part where I say people that have a confirmed background check. Apparently you stopped reading before you saw that. I also said American Citizens, apparently you also missed that one. So, by process of simple elimination, anyone that not a US citizen would be a foreigner, right? I think they should be checked before getting on a plane entering the US. Why is that such a problem? Do you not see any need to know who is entering our country? What part exactly DID you read?
Well, I would suggest the foreigners that want to get here pay for the background check. Or is that too offensive for you? We don't want to offend anyone by turning them away.
I see, so everything is fine. We shouldn't bother with a discussion because apparently you can't handle talking about it. Just stick your head back in the sand and forget I said anything. You seem to believe that if it can't be perfect then we shouldn't bother trying to improve anything.
When I asked who 'Who' is that SHOULD be allowed to fly, you responded - "Basically rich tourists, American citizens, and people that have a confirmed background check." . So can 'rich tourist' not be a foreigner?
Why should US citizens be devoid of being checked before getting on a flight? AGAIN, heard of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber?
What kind of background checks are you talking about? You want every person in the world to go through a Top Secret security check, going back 10 years of history to determine whether they should be allowed to fly or not? You have this mindset that getting these type of clearances are as easy as getting a drivers license. This endeavour would cost BILLIONS, and even these type of screening are not 100% fullproof. Yea, let's make anyone wanting to fly into the US spend a couple hundred bucks to get some usless clearance that I guarantee someone could falsify if they really wanted to. Guess you never want to travel out of the country again with your family. If you think other countries would make their people pay for clearances to fly into the US, that they wouldn't require the same for US citizens to get a clearance check before coming into their country. Let's just go back to pre-Linburgh days and have everyone spend a week on a ocean liner to get around the world.

Ever hear of the Tourist Industry? Take a guess at how many millions, if not billions, each year the US makes on foreigners coming to this country.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3198463
Had this kid's father went to our embassy and reported him on Bushes watch? I think not. That was while team Obama was in place. Exactly when did this guy finally do something to place him on the radar screen?
How many times during the Clinton administration were US interests hit by serious terrorist attacks? I believe it was 4. How many during Bush? I'd say the war on terror was pretty effective.
How many on Bush's watch? How about the most devastaing one of all: 9-11. Yeeea, that's REAL effective.

Everyone wants to put the blame on Obama and the current Homeland Security Administration for letting this kid 'slip through the cracks'. Bottom line is, by all accounts, the security system that Bush put in place with Homeland Security seemed to be doing it's job. But as it ended up, a flaw was found, and one government agency didn't talk to the other, and they ignored this kid's father's comments from getting passed on. OK. No system is 100% perfect or effective. Not even National Security. So Obama's teams will now 'plug the leak' and fix this flaw so that it won't happen again. HOWEVER, that's not to say there could be yet another 'flaw' that can be found by terrorist groups. When you're talking about what is involved with maintaining national security, you're talking about not only several US agencies, but cooperation from the security agencies of every country we deal with. There will always be a possibilty that someone will drop the ball, miss a red flag, or let someone through that they shouldn't have. It's called Human Error. We are an imperfect society. I don't care how much you try, you will never be able to get 100% assurance that something like this won't happen again.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198546
When I asked who 'Who' is that SHOULD be allowed to fly, you responded - "Basically rich tourists, American citizens, and people that have a confirmed background check." . So can 'rich tourist' not be a foreigner?
Why should US citizens be devoid of being checked before getting on a flight? AGAIN, heard of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber?
What kind of background checks are you talking about? You want every person in the world to go through a Top Secret security check, going back 10 years of history to determine whether they should be allowed to fly or not? You have this mindset that getting these type of clearances are as easy as getting a drivers license. This endeavour would cost BILLIONS, and even these type of screening are not 100% fullproof. Yea, let's make anyone wanting to fly into the US spend a couple hundred bucks to get some usless clearance that I guarantee someone could falsify if they really wanted to. Guess you never want to travel out of the country again with your family. If you think other countries would make their people pay for clearances to fly into the US, that they wouldn't require the same for US citizens to get a clearance check before coming into their country. Let's just go back to pre-Linburgh days and have everyone spend a week on a ocean liner to get around the world.

Ever hear of the Tourist Industry? Take a guess at how many millions, if not billions, each year the US makes on foreigners coming to this country.
Timothy Mcveigh and the unibomber used planes?
Islamic terrorists have a history of using airlines for their actions....for the past 40 years. Why? Because it usually affects more than one country.
A Standard background check (one in which would flag you if you are on any terrorist list what so ever) would cost less than 100 dollars. This guy was on a list just not the no fly list, therefore he would have been flagged immediately.
Other countries required us to have passports when we travelled in theior borders for many years and we did not. We were required to pay for that...what is the difference?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198552
How many on Bush's watch? How about the most devastaing one of all: 9-11. Yeeea, that's REAL effective.

Everyone wants to put the blame on Obama and the current Homeland Security Administration for letting this kid 'slip through the cracks'. Bottom line is, by all accounts, the security system that Bush put in place with Homeland Security seemed to be doing it's job. But as it ended up, a flaw was found, and one government agency didn't talk to the other, and they ignored this kid's father's comments from getting passed on. OK. No system is 100% perfect or effective. Not even National Security. So Obama's teams will now 'plug the leak' and fix this flaw so that it won't happen again. HOWEVER, that's not to say there could be yet another 'flaw' that can be found by terrorist groups. When you're talking about what is involved with maintaining national security, you're talking about not only several US agencies, but cooperation from the security agencies of every country we deal with. There will always be a possibilty that someone will drop the ball, miss a red flag, or let someone through that they shouldn't have. It's called Human Error. We are an imperfect society. I don't care how much you try, you will never be able to get 100% assurance that something like this won't happen again.
What lit the fuse on Bushes war on terror? Oh, yeah, Duh, The 9-11 attacks. They hit us outside the combat zone since?
Nobody of any serious note I've heard is blaming Obama for the guy slipping though the cracks. They are for the absolutely dismal way they have handled the aftermath of it.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198552
How many on Bush's watch? How about the most devastaing one of all: 9-11. Yeeea, that's REAL effective.

Everyone wants to put the blame on Obama and the current Homeland Security Administration for letting this kid 'slip through the cracks'. Bottom line is, by all accounts, the security system that Bush put in place with Homeland Security seemed to be doing it's job. But as it ended up, a flaw was found, and one government agency didn't talk to the other, and they ignored this kid's father's comments from getting passed on. OK. No system is 100% perfect or effective. Not even National Security. So Obama's teams will now 'plug the leak' and fix this flaw so that it won't happen again. HOWEVER, that's not to say there could be yet another 'flaw' that can be found by terrorist groups. When you're talking about what is involved with maintaining national security, you're talking about not only several US agencies, but cooperation from the security agencies of every country we deal with. There will always be a possibilty that someone will drop the ball, miss a red flag, or let someone through that they shouldn't have. It's called Human Error. We are an imperfect society. I don't care how much you try, you will never be able to get 100% assurance that something like this won't happen again.
I am not even going to address your 9/11 comment. Just shows how far you will go...
Ok, with that said in the rest of your post, lets disband the police force, since we aren't going to catch all criminals...lets stop our trial system since some criminals will get off...and lets stop screening and checking airline passengers all together. After all, the cost is ridiculous to us and we will allwys have those that slip through in all these cases.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3198546
When I asked who 'Who' is that SHOULD be allowed to fly, you responded - "Basically rich tourists, American citizens, and people that have a confirmed background check." . So can 'rich tourist' not be a foreigner?
Why should US citizens be devoid of being checked before getting on a flight? AGAIN, heard of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber?
I think US citizens should always be allowed to come home. I don't remember where I said they shouldn't be checked. I think you made that up.
I really don't care what it costs some Saudi to get cleared to fly here. I just want to know that they were coming here for a good reason and have an invitation.