Why are we so stuck on inbound? Surely the same armed personnel would have to stay on the aircraft as otherwise they’d be bringing weapons into foreign countries. According to Wikipedia this was an issue with the UK and Germany.
How many countries have a military presence in the US?
I’m British. Negotiating with the terrorists is our tactic and it works. You may have heard of Northern Ireland, for example.
Terrorism isn’t a new kind of war etc etc. It is a style of warfare that has been with us for decades. It is just that until 2001 Americans were by and large unaware of what was happening. Well, the ones that weren’t funding the IRA or sending arms to them that is. Hell, whilst the IRA were happily killing military and civilians alike through terrorism, the President of the United States was still happily receiving Gerry Adams as a guest of honour for St Patrick’s day and he was taking part in New York’s parade.
And we were supposed to be allies.
That quote had nothing to do with what I wrote.
The privacy concerns involve people seeing what is effectively a picture of you naked (and yes, I know it isn’t exactly, but I have seen the example images). The quote says that nobody will see both your face and the images. For many this is not enough. What I said - and your quote does not - is that the Dutch will be utilising software that removes the need for a person seeing the images until something is found that warrants further inspection.
Is it your opinion that using the machines on everyone is a violation of privacy? If so, then our opinions are different. I suggest that the world is now dangerous enough where that minor gambit of reduced privacy is far outweighed by the good; namely, the safety of American air passengers, crew, and equipment. I would suspect that most Americans think this way, although I cannot find a poll anywhere, so this is just a guess.
If Europe’s more delicate sensibilities preclude these safety measures, well that’s up to them. Except of course on flights that are going to the US.
On this you and I are in complete agreement.
Is there some procedure that only escalates to the body scans when some less-intrusive scan indicates trouble? Do you have more details? Unless one can say with 100% certainty that the earlier scans are just as effective at detecting explosives, then wouldn’t that mean we sacrifice safety on the altar of modesty? After all, if the less intrusive scans were just as effective, we wouldn’t need the peek-a-boo shots.
To be safe it has to be cavity searches. It is possible to hide enough to do damage in a vagina or up a butt. We should have the devices that amusement park rides have and an arm come down and pin your chest for the whole flight. During the flight a bomb sniffing beagle will come around and sniff peoples privates . If you need to use the toilet an armed stewardess will escort you. If you spend more than 2 minutes, they hit a button that ejects you down a chute out of the airplane. Yes we can make flying safer.
I’ve yawned and forced myself to wade through this entire thread up to post #203 and Mr. Smashy has convinced me that he and Jack Dean Tyler are equal in refusing to accept any point of view other than their own, no matter how ridiculous their own points of view might be.
What, pray tell, is the point of putting armed personnel only on flights coming into the US when the terrorists can just board a flight leaving the US and hijack it earlier?
As others have said, the only 100% safe way is to strip everyone naked, search all luggage and do cavity searches.
Clearly that is ridiculous, you have to draw the line somewhere. We happen to draw the line in different places, with the majority of Europeans being a lot more concerned about the privacy aspect.
But then again, you could argue that Europeans in general care a lot more about privacy in general, which is weird as a lot of Americans seem to be quite anti “big government” but at the same time are quite prepared to bend over for them when the powers that be tell them to. Personally I blame that on the polarisation of American politics. With only two valid parties many identify with one of them and end up believing that whatever the other side comes up with is evil and whatever their side comes up with is brilliant no matter what. You need more people in government that are between those two poles to bring some reason to the debate.
A lot of people, probably most Americans, would say the exact same thing about the way you feel about your POV.
RNATB, wtf? marshals on all flights out of and into US. Or at least a credible threat of them. Keep the terrorists adapting, on thier toes, never certain. Makes us safer.
Let’s try to keep up, please.
amanset, as for
I agree. Different opinions on where the line is drawn.
In some areas, yes Americans are generally less socialistic/less big-government than Euros. But not when it comes to national security and safety; our country is generally more likely to do pre-emptive strikes, more likely to be in favor of death penalty, and more in favor of investing in force protection around the world as a way to maintain our ability to fight the ‘away game’ instead of letting it come to our shores.
Did ya see that part of the movie where the submarine broke up through the arctic ice?
Man, that was Cool! Did you know they really did that?
Oh, wait, that’s Richard Dean Anderson.
My Bad…
I disagree. It has everything to do with it. So back to the subject at hand.
It comes down to the amount of compromises and sacrifices a society is willing to endure in order to increase their national security. Obviously, the ultimate level would be the strip/cavity searches, which won’t happen anytime soon, at least not outside of SFO or Greece, where they’d probably enjoy it.
:rolleyes:
Less intrusive are the backscatter machines that were under discussion. You could argue that privacy and security are opposites end of a spectrum, wrt these machines. As you’ve deduced earlier, you and I come down on different spots of that spectrum.
If marshals on every flight was possible it would have been done long ago. It costs too damn much . It would take too long to hire, train and get ones that would not cause more trouble than they would prevent. It would be an expensive draining bureaucracy which would be a huge waste . The authorities figured out long ago that As rare an event as a bomb in an airplane is, they will not spend that kind of money . Making you feel all warm and snuggy is not worth it.
I suppose the fact that we have been tossing bombs into Yemen the last few weeks has nothing to do with the attack. They were not even on most peoples radar, now they have moved near the front of the line.
Anyone that will set his crotch on fire to set off an explosion shows great dedication to the cause. But the articles I read say that is not the way to set off PETN. It was doomed from the start.
I am reminded of the “Godfather” when they are trying to get Michael to invest heavily in Cuba. A dissident gave up his life trying to hurt the Batista government. Michael saw that dedication as problematic. If they are willing to blow up their crotch to set off an explosive, they are a serious problem. Now the Yemenis are attacking American buildings in Yemen. We have just widened the war again.Oh when will we ever learn?
I don’t know, seems pretty reasonable to attack Al Qaida training camps. At least your boy Obama thinks so, and he’s hardly a hawk.
As Obama said,
This was done with Yemen’s cooperation.
Or do you think it’s better to let them train would-be terrorists, unmolested, until they actually get through our security and hit us in the US?
And gonzo, I guess you’re just reading every other post or something; well upthread it was suggested that we don’t necessarily need every plan with marshals; we need enough however that it is a credible threat/deterrent for terrorists, and to keep them guessing.
**Posted by Mr. Smashy:
A lot of people, probably most Americans, would say the exact same thing about the way you feel about your POV.**I sincerely doubt it.
Boy, you got us that time, Smashy! We might as well just 'fess up, that’s our whole agenda in a nutshell, weaken America’s defenses and fervently hope for an attack. Might as well give it up, you’re just too smart for us. Darn!
Not at all. you apparently will be satisfied with the illusion of safety. You think some marshals will deter a determined terrorist organization. There seems to be an endless supply of people who are willing to give up their lives to strike at America.
I suppose we could make some good out of this. Have doctors man the check in stations and give every passenger a colo-rectal exam. We could save many lives while making flying as safe as it can be.
