TSA - Pathetic, really
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 16:05 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:10:14 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.30.20.00.47.701191(a)e86.GTS... >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:49:28 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.38.17.301850(a)e86.GTS... >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more >>>>>>>>>>>>> infamously as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound >>>>>>>>>>>>> jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than >>>>>>>>>>>>> four months after September 11, there already were deep >>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday >>>>>>>>>>>>> break. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has >>>>>>>>>>>> been developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know >>>>>>>>>>> that. Your news >>>>>>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that >>>>>>>>>> could identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a >>>>>>>>>> rumour that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH >>>>>>>>>> is stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>>>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its >>>>>>>>> track record of completely preventing attacks? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure >>>>>>> you even know what "system" I'm talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with >>>>>> it because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also >>>>>> because the system works. >>>>> >>>>> We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would >>>>>> never allow such a system, and you know it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. >>>>> Furthermore, it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We >>>>> have no right to fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive >>>>> cars. Customs agents already grill people crossing the border. You've >>>>> never heard the ACLU or any other organization complaining about >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of >>>>> massive propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the >>>>> static regarding health care reform. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem >>>>>>> with any airport screening method. You will now attempt to >>>>>>> disagree, and you will fail. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, we need to do something else. >>>>> >>>>> If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis >>>>> would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. >>>> >>>> Right here is the number 1 reason this system will NOT be allowed in >>>> the US: >>>> >>>> "security at El Al and Ben Gurion depends on intelligence and >>>> intuition -- what Rafi Ron, the former director of security at Ben >>>> Gurion, calls the human factor." >>>> >>>> "Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, >>>> begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly >>>> monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky >>>> clothing, say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're >>>> called -- make a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at >>>> length." >>>> >>>> "But because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, >>>> US passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly >>>> on a random basis. Countless hours have been spent patting down >>>> elderly women in wheelchairs, toddlers with pacifiers, even former US >>>> vice presidents -- time that could have been used instead to >>>> concentrate on passengers with a greater likelihood of being >>>> terrorists." >>> >>> >>> Then it shouldn't be a federal policy. Airlines should be forced to >>> adopt uniform screening methods, or face some sort of sanctions. This >>> way, the screening methods are BUSINESS RULES, no different than "No >>> shirt, no shoes? No service." If Muslims don't like United's rules, >>> they can try JetBlue, which will have the exact same rules. Force the >>> same rules on cruise ship operators. >> >> The article I quoted was from 2006, and was aimed at the Bush >> administration... > > > ...which of course has no bearing on my suggestion that we adopt Israel's > common sense methods. Apparently, terrorists don't even bother showing up > at their airports. I Bush wouldn't do it, Obungler's certainly not going to.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 21:05 "Scott in Florida" <WhoKnows(a)outa.here> wrote in message news:091oj5tsbkam1kh79kvhgbmjj0ee3bop6h(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:46:24 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> > wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:06:49 -0500, ByTor wrote: >> >>>> Technology is not able to stop terrorists, but, using will quite often >>>> thwart terrorists and greatly slow the rate at which they can do >>>> attacks. But that's only if technology is employed properly, which the >>>> TSA and other gov't agencies haven't been doing. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> Add being *politically correct* to the reasons why technologies are not >>> employed properly and you'll have a much better explanation for >>> ineffectivness. >> >>That's what this whole administration boils down to: what's the >>Politically Correct thing to do? >> >> > > ...and who do we blame for our failure... > > -- > > The Sot in Florida The National Endowment for the Arts, grandpa.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 21:10 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.30.21.05.09.324330(a)e86.GTS... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:10:14 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.30.20.00.47.701191(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:49:28 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.38.17.301850(a)e86.GTS... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infamously as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> four months after September 11, there already were deep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday >>>>>>>>>>>>>> break. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know >>>>>>>>>>>> that. Your news >>>>>>>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that >>>>>>>>>>> could identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a >>>>>>>>>>> rumour that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH >>>>>>>>>>> is stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>>>>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its >>>>>>>>>> track record of completely preventing attacks? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure >>>>>>>> you even know what "system" I'm talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with >>>>>>> it because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also >>>>>>> because the system works. >>>>>> >>>>>> We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would >>>>>>> never allow such a system, and you know it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. >>>>>> Furthermore, it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We >>>>>> have no right to fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive >>>>>> cars. Customs agents already grill people crossing the border. You've >>>>>> never heard the ACLU or any other organization complaining about >>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of >>>>>> massive propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the >>>>>> static regarding health care reform. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem >>>>>>>> with any airport screening method. You will now attempt to >>>>>>>> disagree, and you will fail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, we need to do something else. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis >>>>>> would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. >>>>> >>>>> Right here is the number 1 reason this system will NOT be allowed in >>>>> the US: >>>>> >>>>> "security at El Al and Ben Gurion depends on intelligence and >>>>> intuition -- what Rafi Ron, the former director of security at Ben >>>>> Gurion, calls the human factor." >>>>> >>>>> "Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, >>>>> begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly >>>>> monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky >>>>> clothing, say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're >>>>> called -- make a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at >>>>> length." >>>>> >>>>> "But because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, >>>>> US passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly >>>>> on a random basis. Countless hours have been spent patting down >>>>> elderly women in wheelchairs, toddlers with pacifiers, even former US >>>>> vice presidents -- time that could have been used instead to >>>>> concentrate on passengers with a greater likelihood of being >>>>> terrorists." >>>> >>>> >>>> Then it shouldn't be a federal policy. Airlines should be forced to >>>> adopt uniform screening methods, or face some sort of sanctions. This >>>> way, the screening methods are BUSINESS RULES, no different than "No >>>> shirt, no shoes? No service." If Muslims don't like United's rules, >>>> they can try JetBlue, which will have the exact same rules. Force the >>>> same rules on cruise ship operators. >>> >>> The article I quoted was from 2006, and was aimed at the Bush >>> administration... >> >> >> ...which of course has no bearing on my suggestion that we adopt Israel's >> common sense methods. Apparently, terrorists don't even bother showing up >> at their airports. > > I Bush wouldn't do it, Obungler's certainly not going to. Bush wouldn't do it because he could never understand how talking to people could reveal trouble, even though our customs agents do exactly that all day long. Bush needed to see machines in action, for reasons only a psychiatrist could explain.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 17:15
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:58:12 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:46:24 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:06:49 -0500, ByTor wrote: >> >>>> Technology is not able to stop terrorists, but, using will quite often >>>> thwart terrorists and greatly slow the rate at which they can do >>>> attacks. But that's only if technology is employed properly, which the >>>> TSA and other gov't agencies haven't been doing. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> Add being *politically correct* to the reasons why technologies are not >>> employed properly and you'll have a much better explanation for >>> ineffectivness. >> >>That's what this whole administration boils down to: what's the >>Politically Correct thing to do? >> >> >> > ...and who do we blame for our failure... Bush, of course! |