The real reason behind airport scanners

[youtube:jlvzw98y]TEeRD26hDDw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube:jlvzw98y]
 
myfirstcavitysearch.jpg
 
My problem is the security lines have yet to find or convinct a single terrorist. They've overall caused more harm than good. The US and US politicans had a snap reaction in the heat of anger. We're still living with it today. In the end the Terrorists won in a small way as scanners are a violation of our 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. For 90%+ of the people that go through the device it's unreasonable to assume they are terrorists.
 
I still think they should split the airlines in two: 1) high security where everyone is padded down or scanned with a fine tooth comb, and 2) one with no security. After a few #2 planes get blown out of the sky, I wonder how many people will continue with them. But at least that way we have a choice and also gives us an opportunity to kill off a few idiots at the same time.
 
Glaucus said:
I still think they should split the airlines in two: 1) high security where everyone is padded down or scanned with a fine tooth comb, and 2) one with no security. After a few #2 planes get blown out of the sky, I wonder how many people will continue with them.
Click to expand...

If the lower security airlines could opt out of the cost of the higher security then you would see business dry up for the higher security airlines. Gate waits would be less, crotch groping would be less, radiation exposure would be less and most importantly ticket prices would be less. More planes go down from mechanical problems - plus the current security theatre won't stop a bomb attack in the congested lineup nor will the new procedures detect the anus bomb or the breast implant bomb - nor does it do anything about the gaping hole in baggage control. Insiders can still load bombs, insiders can still smuggle contraband etc. It's expensive AND useless.

People would fly on the cheaper more convenient airlines - the number of terror attacks is tiny (though competitors and scanner companies could change that, I suppose).

Mostly these new procedures are about training people to submit to authority and keep them fearful.
 
If the lower security airlines could opt out of the cost of the higher security then you would see business dry up for the higher security airlines. Gate waits would be less, crotch groping would be less, radiation exposure would be less and most importantly ticket prices would be less.
Click to expand...
One could only believe this if they also believed that terrorism doesn't exist. Unfortunately it does. Today it's islamic terrorism, tomorrow it could be something else. The problem is planes are too spectacular of a target to resist, especially now that we've learned what they can do when flown into a building. So yes, the no security airline would be cheaper to run for some reasons, but may also be more expensive as I'm pretty sure their insurance costs will sky rocket. You'll also get into a situation where the rich buy the tickets on the secure airline while the poor play Russian roulette with their lives on the cheap airline (I can't see you being happy with that outcome). And in the end, it'll only take one attack (successful or not) on the cheap airline to make people think twice (fear is more powerful then rational thought and it evolved that way for a reason).

More planes go down from mechanical problems
Click to expand...
Yes more planes, but not ALL planes. According to this link about 9% of all airline fatalities were caused by "sabotage". That's a number that has peeked as high as 13% in the 80s. The question is, have improvements in airport security help bring that number down? Mechanical failures have been more or less stable, hovering at just over 20%, except for this decade where it went up to 28% (not sure how that happened but if I were to research that I'd first look up what's been de-regulated in the airline industry in the prior decade). But it's not only about bringing planes down, it's also about hijacking. Looking at this wiki link we can clearly see that hijackings have also come down significantly since the 80s, and most of them are not in Western nations. My thinking is security has probably played a role here as I don't expect demand for hijackings has decreased.

plus the current security theatre won't stop a bomb attack in the congested lineup nor will the new procedures detect the anus bomb or the breast implant bomb
Click to expand...
You're right, but security isn't always about making something impossible, usually just making it hard is enough to deter most people. Surgically implanting bombs may be next to impossible to detect (at least with modern technology) but at the same time requires a fair bit of sophistication and resources. Chances are they'll opt for easier targets, but few targets can provide the guaranteed kill of over 100 people in a single shot. Trains and buses just don't carry that many people and you'll need many more bombs and attackers to achieve the same amount of carnage. The bombings in Spain for example used high quality explosives bought from mine workers where as 9/11 didn't use any bombs at all - and the Spain bombings still paled in comparison when it came to body count even if you don't count the WTC casualties. Good luck killing that many people with nothing more then box cutters on a train or bus. The thing is when we come to planes we could tolerate the occasional hijacking like we saw in the 80s, but now planes have become powerful weapons themselves. This is a game changer.

nor does it do anything about the gaping hole in baggage control. Insiders can still load bombs, insiders can still smuggle contraband etc. It's expensive AND useless.
Click to expand...
Expensive? Yes. Useless? No. I'd say totally worth it. We can argue as to how to spend the money more wisely (airport design plays a huge role in security and that's something we also need to see happen), but to say that all security measures are worthless seems pretty daft to me.
 
Even among Islamists, suicide bombers are hard to come by and tend to die making them harder to come by all the time. They make the news from where ever in the world they occur but remember that most of them occur in active war zones and even so there are close to 7 billion people on the planet but you won't hear of a suicide bombing for months at a time.

While the easiest way of scaring the public may be to allow terrorist attacks to go ahead, it turns out that the terrorists just don't have the resources to mount numerous successful attacks.

Instead we have to be bombarded with stories of "almost" attacks like the all those "terrorists" who were wanna bes coached by informants - or just plain old training excercises that go rogue.

The current security probably wouldn't have stopped the underbomber - there is witness testimony that indicates that his boarding of the plane was facilitated by a third party, and it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 or anything like it where teams of people worked with primitive weapons. There are lots of things you can still take through security which you could use to kill someone in a highly intimidating way (i.e. fear and caution inducing).

You are only stopping the lamest type of terrorist and those guys already weren't getting through.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If the lower security airlines could opt out of the cost of the higher security then you would see business dry up for the higher security airlines. Gate waits would be less, crotch groping would be less, radiation exposure would be less and most importantly ticket prices would be less. More planes go down from mechanical problems - plus the current security theatre won't stop a bomb attack in the congested lineup nor will the new procedures detect the anus bomb or the breast implant bomb - nor does it do anything about the gaping hole in baggage control. Insiders can still load bombs, insiders can still smuggle contraband etc. It's expensive AND useless.

People would fly on the cheaper more convenient airlines - the number of terror attacks is tiny (though competitors and scanner companies could change that, I suppose).

Mostly these new procedures are about training people to submit to authority and keep them fearful.
Click to expand...

+1
 
hey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
Click to expand...
- Benjamin Franklin
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Even among Islamists, suicide bombers are hard to come by and tend to die making them harder to come by all the time.
Click to expand...
Look, hard as they may be to come by, they still come by them often, so the reason we're not seeing more suicide air bombings isn't because there's a complete lack of bombers. In this wiki page detailing all the terror attacks just in 2010, the word suicide appears 24 times, and sometimes in reference to multiple attackers. Could you imagine planes going down twice a month?

While the easiest way of scaring the public may be to allow terrorist attacks to go ahead, it turns out that the terrorists just don't have the resources to mount numerous successful attacks.
Click to expand...
No they don't, not under the current security restrictions they don't. If we were to make it easier for them to get bombs on planes however, they'd easily have the resources as like I've demonstrated above: there's no shortage of bombers or bombs or determination.

The current security probably wouldn't have stopped the underbomber - there is witness testimony that indicates that his boarding of the plane was facilitated by a third party
Click to expand...
Provide a credible link or it didn't happen.

and it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 or anything like it where teams of people worked with primitive weapons.
Click to expand...
You're saying they are incapable of stopping people from bringing box cutters on a plane? I've had my one inch blade Swiss army knife attached to my key chain confiscated (post 9/11). I think they'll notice Arabs carrying a box cutter after 9/11.

There are lots of things you can still take through security which you could use to kill someone in a highly intimidating way (i.e. fear and caution inducing).
Click to expand...
Maybe, but unless you can evade the air marshals and force yourself into the cockpit or create a catastrophic rupture in the fuselage, you're not likely to bring down the plane. You'd probably also get attacked by everyone at the same time as well, so you better be good with the martial arts. Plus pilots can make planes fly upside down which can totally ruin your plans, so you better be ninja quick with your little weapon. Thanks to some basic security upgrades on the planes themselves bombs are what terrorists need and that's what the security system at the checkin line is mostly geared against.

You are only stopping the lamest type of terrorist and those guys already weren't getting through.
Click to expand...
That's how you see it. I see it as forcing the attackers to use less reliable techniques for their attacks, and so far it has worked.
 
Glaucus said:
Thanks to some basic security upgrades on the planes themselves bombs are what terrorists need and that's what the security system at the checkin line is mostly geared against.
Click to expand...
The check-in line is geared to find known methods of taking a plane. They are as secure as the terrorist unwilling to use a new method.

I see it as forcing the attackers to use less reliable techniques for their attacks, and so far it has worked.
Click to expand...
You asked others to provide a credible link. You need to do the same here. How about some links for convicted terrorists who tried the less reliable techniques that were caught because of the workings of the current search system in an airport.

One interesting thing I see is few issues bring the left and right together, one recent one is the over extending of these searches.
 
[youtube:20psxloh]e_mJdxtnpTQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube:20psxloh]

"Comply With Me*

(With deepest apologies to Sammy Cahn, Jimmy Van Heusen & Frank Sinatra)

Comply with me, before you fly away
Remove those shoes and take a cruise
Through my peekaboo X-ray
Comply with me, I'm your friendly TSA

Comply with me, you domestic coach class bums
If you opt out I'll just give a shout
To my icy-handed chums
Comply with me, bend over here it comes

Once I get all up there where your hair is ticklish
I'll just fish
Got my wish
Once I get all up there you'll be squirming like an eel
You may squeal
At the feel
When we're together

Proctology is such a lovely trade
I'll show you love with my rubber glove
Try not to be afraid
I'd be a perfect gentleman, if you had just obeyed
Comply with me, I'm GS8 pay grade

Janet Napolitano says to spread 'em wide
Have you tried Astro-glide?
Janet Napolitano knows your clothes are off
Head aloft
Turn it and cough
When we're together

Don't crack wise or I'll ruin your whole day
Please don't frown when I pat you down
It alerts the CIA
It's perfectly legal practice except at Gitmo Bay
Comply with me, comply comply
Comply with me, obey, obey, obey!

Check out the security risks on that one! Yeah!
 
[youtube:2lpwpaz6]E3Rpf5eCdms[/youtube:2lpwpaz6]
 
Language warning and it takes a couple of minutes before he gets to the point but it's an interesting insider opinion.

[youtube:lrhduie1]fYyOjiQhoqg[/youtube:lrhduie1]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top