Lap Bomber???

[FluffyMcDeath]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=terrorist-trap-or-virtual-strip-search

i prefer walking through a machine than some creepy guy touching me

So having a creepy guy looking at you naked on a computer screen is OK because you can't SEE the creepy guy (and his buddies).

What you said reminds me of this quote:

Finally, the TSA played its trump. It posed a false dichotomy that the corporate media obligingly parroted: screeners will either grope us or photograph us naked. This trap continues snaring too many passengers. Yeah, they say, they'd rather be ogled than molested.

from here.

 

[redrumloa]

Modern propaganda owes more to Edward Bernays than the Nazi propagandists.

Give that credit to president Woodrow Wilson (D) 1912-1920.

 

[redrumloa]

So having a creepy guy looking at you naked on a computer screen is OK because you can't SEE the creepy guy (and his buddies).

I remember posting here about these naked screener machines a couple years back. I got scoffed at and told I must be self conscious about having a small penis or something. Truth be told those measures won't work for anything except making us lose far more freedoms and dignity. It will get far worse too when the TSA workers are unionized.

 

[Glaucus]

i prefer walking through a machine than some creepy guy touching me

Ya, well, you might as well get used to creeps looking at your naughty bits as it's only a matter of time before that technology gets incorporated into cell phones. ython:

 

[Karlos]

I dunno. I'm not buying the "Lap Bomber" thing. It's just not catchy enough. The underwear bomber? Nah! It needs more zip, more pizzazz ...

i'm thinking:

CROTCH BOMBER!!

(watch out for his burning loins)

There's only one place where exploding pants is acceptable and that's in Fallout 3

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

i prefer walking through a machine than some creepy guy touching me

Personally I go for the pat down. If my rights are going to get violated then I want the person doing it to be right where I can see them. I don't see why I'm the only one who should be feeling uncomfortable.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Ya, well, you might as well get used to creeps looking at your naughty bits as it's only a matter of time before that technology gets incorporated into cell phones. ython:

Nonetheless, it was kind of ballsy of the Government of Soviet Kanuckistan to order naked scanners months ago despite resistance and bad press for the trial installations.

Lucky for them that the underpants bomber set light to his nutsack when he did. Good thing too that he failed to blow up the plane and everybody got to find out about his flaming ginch right away instead of having a long investigation of wreckage which would come to only vague conclusions and far too late.

Of course, the fact that the naked scanners wouldn't have spotted this particular bomb is of no importance.

And it will do nothing to foil the rectal bomber (but maybe his walk would give him away) - so then the airports will need rectal probes and we all grab our ankles before we get on the plane.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Give that credit to president Woodrow Wilson (D) 1912-1920.

OK, fair enough. Though let's be fair, it wasn't the beginning of propaganda. Most of the old propaganda would just come out of the intelligence and power elite organizations directly rather than have it's own department. Setting up your own propaganda department was just a way of getting around the existing propaganda organs so that you could get your own preferred propaganda out there.

Private individuals too have set up their own private propaganda machines, notably newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. Generally it takes quite a lot of investment and means to own these things so they tend to be owned by people with means and tend to speak in the interest of people with means.

British intelligence during WWI was the propaganda agency that first produced the story that the Germans rendered human corpses into soap. This story was recycled in modified form for WWII. It was also British intelligence that funded Mussolini in WWI to publish propaganda in his newspapers to keep the Italians in the war. It was partly because of this early backing that he was able to turn this media power into political power before WWII at which time he ended up on the "wrong" side. Berlusconi has done much the same, and like Hitler has allied himself with the biggest power of the time which felt that no other power could curb it's expansionist ambitions.

Of course propaganda goes back much further than that. The Roman head of propaganda was the Pontifex Maximus, and he still is.

Modern propaganda is in some ways more sophisticated than it used to be, but not much. Saddam's incubator baby dumping soldiers of the first Gul War became the human shredding machines of the second. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction became Ahmadinejad's.

Then again, 50% of people are of below average intelligence and in a democracy you only have to fool 51%. It's a pretty low bar.

 

[faethor]

Personally I go for the pat down. If my rights are going to get violated then I want the person doing it to be right where I can see them. I don't see why I'm the only one who should be feeling uncomfortable.

And of course we'll only be traveling commando.

 

[Glaucus]

Nonetheless, it was kind of ballsy of the Government of Soviet Kanuckistan to order naked scanners months ago despite resistance and bad press for the trial installations.

Can't say I've thought about our government as a bunch of commies before, but I do hate them just the same. As for the machines themselves I really can't say if they're a good idea or how effective they will be. However one thing is certain that security so far has been inadequate. New security machines may be unavoidable but screening techniques like those used by Israeli airlines might be more effective still. Hard to say.

Lucky for them that the underpants bomber set light to his nutsack when he did. Good thing too that he failed to blow up the plane and everybody got to find out about his flaming ginch right away instead of having a long investigation of wreckage which would come to only vague conclusions and far too late.

Also lucky for us that the attack failed and we're not left with nothing but a bunch of "false flag" conspiracy theories to ease our grieving.

Of course, the fact that the naked scanners wouldn't have spotted this particular bomb is of no importance.

Well of course that's important and it's been ridiculed on shows like Colbert Report. From what I've heard the machines will blur out the private bits, which to me seems silly. I personally don't care - I shower naked in front of random strangers at the gym and at hockey all the time. You could just pretend you're at wreck beach! (although to make it more believable photos of naked 17 year old girls would be required, but that would make airport security too enjoyable) :wink: Of course I do realize other people get nervous about their body and nudity. Anyway, the real problem is they'd need to start doing strip searches to completely eliminate the threat of a bomb.

Personally, I don't like giving up my privacy, but at the same time we have to remember that when you're at war with terrorists it's not just the troops in Afghanistan that are on the front line, we're all on the front line - no matter where we are. Can the government abuse this fact? They sure can and we need to keep guard against turning into an Israel or a Palestine where the respective governments use conflict to stay relevant. However I'm willing to accept tighter airport security so long as it doesn't spill over into the rest of mainstream life. Risk of slippery slope? Perhaps, but the terrorists have so far shown a keen interest in air travel, so it would be rather dumb of us to allow our lax airport security to continue.

And it will do nothing to foil the rectal bomber (but maybe his walk would give him away) - so then the airports will need rectal probes and we all grab our ankles before we get on the plane.

Sniffing dogs could probably still detect it. I wonder why we don't see more of those at air ports.

 

[cecilia]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=terrorist-trap-or-virtual-strip-search

i prefer walking through a machine than some creepy guy touching me

So having a creepy guy looking at you naked on a computer screen is OK because you can't SEE the creepy guy (and his buddies).

What you said reminds me of this quote:

Finally, the TSA played its trump. It posed a false dichotomy that the corporate media obligingly parroted: screeners will either grope us or photograph us naked. This trap continues snaring too many passengers. Yeah, they say, they'd rather be ogled than molested.

from here.

don't take this personally, but as a female person I can tell you that I got used to creepy guys looking at me long ago on a daily basis.

esp when I was in HS wearing that uniform. As I must have mentioned before that was a wacko magnet.

so, while I don't get creepy stares anymore (or fewer, anyway), I am used to that. Touching me is WAAAAY creepier.

 

[cecilia]

i prefer walking through a machine than some creepy guy touching me

Personally I go for the pat down. If my rights are going to get violated then I want the person doing it to be right where I can see them. I don't see why I'm the only one who should be feeling uncomfortable.

the times when I have been patted down or had my laptop scrubbed etc I always make sure the other person(s) are Uncomfortable.

that said, I really see no point is using planes when it's become such an annoying experience. I am too lazy to look for the link now, but a few days ago in a NJ airport a guy wanted to kiss his GF goodbye and waited until a security guard left his post to run in where he wasn't supposed to go to briefly make a Buss.

no biggy, but because the security guy left his post, and certain cameras were not working, etc etc, this ended up delaying passengers while the stupid morons in the airport tried to figure out what happened.

we are in danger NOT from criminals but from dopes. yes, the security guy was placed on leave (as far as I know now) and they did find Mr kissy puss, although he isn't the problem. They want to make him a scapegoat, of course because they are embarrassed.

but the REAL problem is that these people just don't know how to deal with criminals and how to prevent them from committing their stupid acts.

until someone become smart, i'm just not using planes. not because I am "afraid" of criminals because I have never felt that way. but because I don't deserve to be treated like a criminal by incompetent boobs.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[...] but a few days ago in a NJ airport a guy wanted to kiss his GF goodbye and waited until a security guard left his post to run in where he wasn't supposed to go to briefly make a Buss.

Yes, I remember that. The security cameras are everywhere and yet - they almost never seem to work. Isn't that amazing. Someone made money installing them though, but one wonders whether they ever installed real cameras at all, or they just installed fakes and pocketed the difference.

But, even more stupid, did you hear about the guy that had a bomb in his luggage? Think how that can put a crimp in your day when you arrive at your destination and go straight to the small room for a talking to. Slovak security used his luggage for training - then forgot!!

Now, back to the scanners for a moment. The fact that the scanners would not have detected the kind of device that the underbomber carried means that they are already obsolete. That aside, how would you feel about the scanners if you knew that they were capable of capturing and saving images? because, they can. Simply by delivering the unit with the feature turned off does not mean that it can't be turned back on, but it does give the TSA some leeway about how it can describe them to the public. Since the new technology can be trivially tied to the new passports, it would be trivial to build a naked database and since it is trivial then it will be done probably quietly on the excuse that it could constitute important evidence if something later happens to the aircraft. And from then on it becomes part of the security record and the FBI will be able to access it and eventually the police will get access - still feeling OK with it? And, yes, Mike is right, eventually the police will be carrying these things in their pockets and scanning people at random stops - and all police officers are trustworthy and not corrupted by the power.

 

[Glaucus]

Yes, I remember that. The security cameras are everywhere and yet - they almost never seem to work. Isn't that amazing. Someone made money installing them though, but one wonders whether they ever installed real cameras at all, or they just installed fakes and pocketed the difference.

Actually, I think the cameras were working, I saw footage of the guy kissing his girl on the TV news. You can even see it on youTube: Newark Airport Security Breach Video Footage. It gets interesting at the 5:30 mark.

I once breached airport security, but lucky for me they were such dopes they never noticed. It was when I landed in Thessaloniki back in 1999, back when security was far more lax. I was supposed to walk through customs, but instead walked through this other door which took me straight to the waiting room where my relatives were. We grabbed my bags and left without so much as talking to a customs official. Worked out fine for me, but I could have been importing drugs or bombs or something. Personally, I think airports were just not designed for security.

Nor are bus terminals. Remember the guy who beheaded some other guy on a Greyhound bus just outside of Winnipeg? No checks at all. There was talk of changing that, but not sure if anything happened. Probably nothing.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[...]when you're at war with terrorists it's not just the troops in Afghanistan that are on the front line, we're all on the front line

That's actually bullshit. We are NOT at war with terrorists, we at war with countries. We are participating in the US war to secure strategic territory as we have for years. The people who live there are unhappy about it and some of those people have turned that into a justifiable religious crusade. We are in very little danger of terrorism compared to the regular dangers of adverse drug reactions and eating wieners without properly chewing. The resources poured into this war are completely out of proportion to the capabilities of the enemy. Airplanes fell from the skies prior to terrorist bombings and they continue to do so. The troubles in Ireland were long and occasionally brutal and both sides
did inexcusable things (including involvement in bombing innocents) but the civilian death toll was far below the civilian death toll that the US and its lackies have meted out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[quote:3nzxtlgb]And it will do nothing to foil the rectal bomber (but maybe his walk would give him away) - so then the airports will need rectal probes and we all grab our ankles before we get on the plane.

Sniffing dogs could probably still detect it. I wonder why we don't see more of those at air ports.[/quote:3nzxtlgb]
A dog sniffing your butt doesn't tell you anything. That's what dogs do - bomb or no bomb.
And why would you want dogs when you can spend millions on high tech scanners from companies with good lobbyists?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Hitlers propagandists were not that good, they told the "Big Lie", which falls apart once the lie is exposed.

Here's what Hitler said about the Big Lie:

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

 

[Glaucus]

And killing off those who see through the lie always helps.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

And killing off those who see through the lie always helps.

The intellectuals are always targeted, as we've seen in Russia, South America, Iraq, etc. Chopping off the head means that you can feast on the body without resistance.

 

[Glaucus]

[...]when you're at war with terrorists it's not just the troops in Afghanistan that are on the front line, we're all on the front line

That's actually bullshit.

Don't hold back now, tell us how you REALLY feel. :wink:

We are NOT at war with terrorists, we at war with countries. We are participating in the US war to secure strategic territory as we have for years. The people who live there are unhappy about it and some of those people have turned that into a justifiable religious crusade.

Well, the US certainly has always had a high level of "influence" in the region, even before 9/11 or even the first Gulf War. However until the first Gulf War America's involvement has mostly been behind the scenes - US troops weren't stationed there in large numbers until after 1991 when they kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. It is at about this time where the "justifiable religious crusade" really started, but I'm not sure it was targeted only at the US. Sure there were a few incidents before that point involving Israel and Lebanon and even Iran, but those didn't really concern most other Arabs at the time - Al-Qaeda didn't seem to mind getting US assistance when fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, even though US troops were in Beirut. It was after 91 that al-Qaeda blew up 2 hotels in Yemen believed to be hosting US troops bound for Somalia, tried to blow up the WTC, made two attempts to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak, blew up some embassies in Africa, bombed Philippine Airlines Flight 434, attempted to blow up LAX on New Years eve 1999, blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole, flew planes into the WTC, bombed vacationers in Bali, bombed the French tanker Limburg in Yemen, blew up trains in Spain, blew up busses in London, assassinated Benazir Bhutto, bombed the Algerian prime ministers office, bombed the Danish embassy in Pakistan, attempted to blow up airplanes using liquid explosives plus various other attacks world wide. Interestingly, none of these attacks had any potential to drive US forces out of their bases in the Middle East and on a whole seem very unfocused. In fact, looking back at these attacks it seems more like they were intentionally trying to pick a fight with someone, and it didn't seem to matter who. You'd have to cherry pick very specific attacks to come to the conclusion that al-Qaeda is conducting some kind of justifiable religious crusade only against the US.

Anyway, al-Qaeda is our enemy even if it's an enemy we produced. Not only that, we're not al-Qaeda's only enemy. If the US and it's far reaching influence all sunk into the abyss al-Qaeda would continue with it's current coarse with plenty more targets to choose from.

We are in very little danger of terrorism compared to the regular dangers of adverse drug reactions and eating wieners without properly chewing. The resources poured into this war are completely out of proportion to the capabilities of the enemy. Airplanes fell from the skies prior to terrorist bombings and they continue to do so.

All wars are winnable, it's a matter of how much effort and time one is willing to put into it. The problem here isn't that we're fighting al-Qaeda, it's that we're fighting al-Qaeda in a really stupid way. George Bush's immediate response set us on a coarse to failure. The Iraq invasion was by far the worst case scenario as Iraq was already terrorist free and under the control of someone ruthless enough to keep it that way. Afghanistan on the other hand was deep in civil war and we really did have a chance at improving things there. But again, the Iraq war stole focus away and things went downhill ever since. If the resources wasted on Iraq were sent to Afghanistan, and people smarter then the Bush administration were in charge (and weren't obsessed with Iraq's oil fields), we could have seen a lot more progress in Afghanistan where the people really did suffer under Taliban rule and were mostly happy to see them go. Sure, no one likes foreign forces on their home turf, but keep in mind that most al-Qaeda in Afghanistan weren't Afghanis either and were also hated by the locals.

So ya, al-Qaeda may be conducting a religious crusade, but hardly a justifiable one.

 

[Glaucus]

esp when I was in HS wearing that uniform.

Ummm.. got any photos? :mrgreen: