All I can say is Go Greyhound.
So what’s your point here? That the entire air marshal program is completely wasted money? That there’s absolutely no increase in security at all from having them? If you were Obama, you’d eliminate that program completely?
That’s your thrust here?
The fact that people are willing to kill themselves to take down Americans is mostly irrelavent to the discussion; we know the threat is there, and isn’t going away in our lifetimes, in all likelihood.
I suggest that having enough marshals to keep them guessing, as long as it’s a credible number, forces the bad guys to take that into account when planning attacks, and derails some of the lower-hanging fruit methods of attack.
Do you honestly disagree with that statement? Does anyone on this board honestly disagree with that? [jingo] Do you hate America that much? [/jingo]
I’m not saying that we should have 15 marshals on every plane. That’s overkill, and as Penguin and I figured out awhile back *(which you would know if you actually read this thread), we cannot afford that.
But just because some defensive measure is not 100% foolproof does not mean that it doesn’t make sense to do it.
Elucidator, go read Gonzo’s post 215. Does he not imply that a) our strikes caused them to respond, and b) we shouldn’t have taken those steps, thereby ‘widening the war’? Seems pretty clear to me. If you disagree, then please explain.
PS I guess the President has some balls after all. I guess Jesse never got around to cutting them off.
“Jesse”?
None. Zero. Zilch.
Especially when pretty much all of the shit we do doesn’t increase security, it increases the illusion of security.
You want to be scanned, go right ahead. Me, I don’t want it.
IMHO, a reasonable position. Just not mine.
Nope. Crashing a couple of airplanes into the world trade center didn’t endanger our national security. They killed some of some of our citizens, but the country itself was never at jeopardy. What’s at stake with these underwear bombers is individual security, and the extent to which we’ll allow the federal government to act as a nanny in keeping us individually protected from every possible danger.
Actually SMASHY we are trying to find a way to make you feel safe. Most people recognize nobody has been hurt by a terrorist since 2001. Most terrorists are aware that any little attack ,no matter how futile, will result in a lot of Americans screaming about a lack of protection. You are in that group. Many will cry about the need for more levels of security. But there will always be a risk in being in public. You can never be safe enough. Lets spend enough tax dollars to make you feel safe. If that is at all possible.
Whoops! There may be an issue with the new scanners and the UK’s child protection laws regarding child pornography. For those thinking “yeah, right”, apparently the trial of them in Manchester exempted under-18s for specifically this reason:
Since this is the Pit, I can safely say that you are a fucking idiot.
Oh fuck this is a stupid thing to say.
Sometimes the truth is stupid.
Can you even begin to explain how crashing a couple of planes into buildings endangered the security of the entire nation? Of course not.
Maybe if the planes had nukes onboard, and there were another hundred of em in preflight, but that wasn’t the case, was it?
Now we got a nation of whiny ass titty babies shouting that democracy will perish from the face of the earth if we don’t spend billions bouncing X-rays of aunt Tilliy’s privates every time she wants to fly somewhere.
That’s the real stupid for you.
Reasonable precautions, sure, but federal nannys on every flight? hundreds of million dollar machines? millions more on the beaurocracy to staff em? Given the actual risk level involved, that’s insanity.
The incomplete truth, so popular with the modern media and to defend political views that could be hampered by the real facts. In Schiphol, the full body scan was until now only used as a test. So it was not specifically not used for US flights, it was not used for any flights other than selected tests. It is also unclear if it could have prevented this (amateurish) attempt. Personally, I find it comforting the terrorist apparently have to resort to these badly executed methods. Apparently, the system works 
Maybe you’re just stupid.
Why? Did you think America was in danger of being brought down? If so, please explain. Many countries have been attacked by terrorists. Have any been brought down? It is just a tactic to bring the battle to our turf. We have fought on other nations land for a century. They hope if some American citizens die in the war then less Americans will back our wars. It is doomed for failure.
Nah, it’s more likely that you’re just one of our nation’s many people with a phobia about airplane terrorism.
If you’d just man up about it, like the rest of us, it wouldn’t be such a problem.
The terrorists would see that they aren’t traumatizing us with underwear bombs, and try something different. As it is, the nation’s pandering to cowards is dragging down commercial aviation in a time of recession. That’s just the sort of thing the terrorists like to see. If you fight your fear, you’ll be fighting the terrorists, instead of caving to their methods.
There’s a difference between acknowledging that 9/11 endangered our national security, and running around pissing yourself because a dumbfuck set his dick on fire on a plane.
After 911, we should have cleaned out the mess and built the towers up to look like they did before. Then the worst attack in American turf would look like we got on with our lives. That nothing lasting was accomplished.
How so? Did Rhode Island almost split off and become a monarchy or something? I hadn’t heard about that.
Admittedly the level of crazy in the country went through the roof, and we ended up neglecting our economy and conquering a shithole nation that had nothing to do with the attack, but those lapses were our fault, not any logically necessary consequence of a few airplanes hitting a few buildings.