How's that whole opt out thingy going? Looks like a massive failure as far as protests go. Maybe people would rather make it to Grandma's before the turkey gets cold.
If this has nothing to do with the TSA, why publish? I love the headline too... amazing what a little grandstanding will do huh Mike?
"Obviously, this is not a failure of the TSA, in that the mistake was by the law enforcement agent who left the clip, but the point is that it's impossible to protect against all threats on a plane"
Right on, Isolve. I agree. Whiners the lot of 'em.
Watch out, they'll complain about your sentence structure and the evil empire until their butts implode from vacuum.
The alertness of the citizens is most important. With the citizens reporting any suspicious objects, or persons, we help to create the same Orwellian environment as scanners. We should all wear camera glasses and have little red buttons on a chain around our necks.
"Of course this article is focused on the airports... because that's where the subject of privacy-invasion comes in. That's my whole point... look at all the attention the media is giving to just this ONE facet of anti-terrorism work. And that's why terrorists will have an easier time sneaking in the back door. Because one of our primary weapons in this - the alertness and awareness of the citizenry - is focused elsewhere."
Of course it is focused on airports, that IS the whole point, and as I mentioned in the other comment you didn't read, the interwebs are alight news on what homeland is doing on all those fronts. I don't think they are ignoring any doors. We are talking about the TSA's groping and scanning. You keep trying to change the subject.
"If I agree to your Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc argument, sure why not. However, until extensive studies and tests are done ALL of the factors involved, you cannot point to any one factor and say "There! That's the one that's doing it!"
Yes you did prove my point, nice of you to agree, try Mucinex. Your fallacy is trying to avoid failure.
The scanners have never been able to find something in a body cavity, this was reported from the beginning.
"I would argue that you didn't understand my sentence... hence your response of
"You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?"
...which is NOT what I said."
Is the TSA using this technology? Yes they are. Your quibbling with semantics doesn't help your case.
"Nooo... because if they are ineffective at stopping terrorism, there would be no change in casualties when those measures are removed from the equation."
Thanks, I had it backwards but you proved my point. Removing the TSA would prove effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Lack of change = ineffective.
"True, but are those threats changed by the fact that we are focusing all of our attention on airlines? If anything, I think terrorists are sneaking in the back door while we're watching the front just because that's where they came in last time. Or, more accurately, I think that’s the stronger possibility than using airlines again. "
We're focusing all our attention on airlines? Only in this article. That's why I instructed you to limit the discussion to the act of flying planes into buildings.
The webs are alight with blogs about all security measures involving malls, power grid, cyber battles, mail bombs, etc. It's only because of the naked scans and pat downs that we discuss airports now.
"And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS[sic]."
I understood your sentence and still ask, how did these experts prove these were ineffective? It is the TSA that is using these security measures after all. If you have time, give me a link.
Nitpick? You brought up sentence structure first I believe, before that I said nothing about your frequent misspellings.
"The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties."
The would prove either effectiveness or ineffectiveness, because if it is ineffective like you say, casualties would go up.
By the way, I said "transportation" on my poorly structured sentence, not just planes, but you don't read any better than you spell.
The TSA is not in charge of malls, they are in charge of transportation.
"Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were."
You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?
Re: Re: Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
Ahh, I see. Since the odds are still in our favor we should ignore the bowie knives on planes. On top of that, we'll all die in car accidents anyway, so what's the use? Whatever it takes to make your life hassle free.
"I will assume that your poorly structured sentance meant that you believe the primary goal of the TSA is to prevent terrorists from using transportation as missles (including planes), and to save the lives of passengers. Correct me if I'm wrong. "
OK. Sentance=Sentence, missle=missile
The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties.
You never mentioned alternatives?
"The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet."
Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
El Al has not had a hijacking since 1968. They profile. Probably stopped more than one terrorist. Since the TSA stopped letting you carry knives on the plane its easier for the passengers to fight back, no? I would like the TSA to give you the option to skip the security check, as long as you board a separate plane with the other objectors. "Your opinion sucks" is right up there with the sheeple comment.
How do you know it's ineffective? Obviously it's bureaucratic and authoritarian. It's easier to fight back when all the terrorists have is a plastic fork. Would you agree?
Crybabies shouldn't get on planes in the first place. What is this? TSA has never caught a terrorist with the scans or pat downs? It hasn't happened YET. It will happen, and when it does the guy that objected to the pat down will be the first to sue. Ignore the fact that someone put a bomb in their UNDERWEAR trying to kill innocents. These terrorists love the fact that whiners are trying to eliminate these security measures. Saying these scans invade privacy, then saying that the scans don't work. What is it? Just the fact that these measures are in place deters terrorists, but there are no stats on that so it must not be true.
What is the solution? Tell me! Any ideas? Quit crying, take a train, boat. Don't get me killed.
Quit with the "groping" and naked scans. Just shut it down. We don't need no stinkin' TSA. To be a passenger on a plane will equal a bungee jump with no bungee cord inspection. Adrenalin rush!!
What does one suggest we do to stop someone with a bomb sewn into their underwear? Just ask? Use the honor system? How about separate flights for those refusing the "grope" or scan? Let them all fly together, then we can gather some statistics on lives saved.
On the post: TSA Claims You Need To Be Naked Scanned Or Groped After A Flight?
Re:
On the post: TSA Claims You Need To Be Naked Scanned Or Groped After A Flight?
OPT out OPTED out
On the post: While TSA Looks At You Naked, Child Finds Loaded Gun Magazine Left On Southwest Plane
Why
"Obviously, this is not a failure of the TSA, in that the mistake was by the law enforcement agent who left the clip, but the point is that it's impossible to protect against all threats on a plane"
Geez...
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Profile already
On the post: San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?
Profile already
On the post: Botched TSA Pat Down Leaves Traveler Covered In Urine
TSA fever
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Scanners
Watch out, they'll complain about your sentence structure and the evil empire until their butts implode from vacuum.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Of course it is focused on airports, that IS the whole point, and as I mentioned in the other comment you didn't read, the interwebs are alight news on what homeland is doing on all those fronts. I don't think they are ignoring any doors. We are talking about the TSA's groping and scanning. You keep trying to change the subject.
"If I agree to your Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc argument, sure why not. However, until extensive studies and tests are done ALL of the factors involved, you cannot point to any one factor and say "There! That's the one that's doing it!"
Yes you did prove my point, nice of you to agree, try Mucinex. Your fallacy is trying to avoid failure.
The scanners have never been able to find something in a body cavity, this was reported from the beginning.
"I would argue that you didn't understand my sentence... hence your response of
"You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?"
...which is NOT what I said."
Is the TSA using this technology? Yes they are. Your quibbling with semantics doesn't help your case.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Thanks, I had it backwards but you proved my point. Removing the TSA would prove effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Lack of change = ineffective.
"True, but are those threats changed by the fact that we are focusing all of our attention on airlines? If anything, I think terrorists are sneaking in the back door while we're watching the front just because that's where they came in last time. Or, more accurately, I think that’s the stronger possibility than using airlines again. "
We're focusing all our attention on airlines? Only in this article. That's why I instructed you to limit the discussion to the act of flying planes into buildings.
The webs are alight with blogs about all security measures involving malls, power grid, cyber battles, mail bombs, etc. It's only because of the naked scans and pat downs that we discuss airports now.
"And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS[sic]."
I understood your sentence and still ask, how did these experts prove these were ineffective? It is the TSA that is using these security measures after all. If you have time, give me a link.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
"The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties."
The would prove either effectiveness or ineffectiveness, because if it is ineffective like you say, casualties would go up.
By the way, I said "transportation" on my poorly structured sentence, not just planes, but you don't read any better than you spell.
The TSA is not in charge of malls, they are in charge of transportation.
"Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were."
You say that independent research, testing and experts proved the TSA is ineffective? How did they do that?
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
"I will assume that your poorly structured sentance meant that you believe the primary goal of the TSA is to prevent terrorists from using transportation as missles (including planes), and to save the lives of passengers. Correct me if I'm wrong. "
OK. Sentance=Sentence, missle=missile
The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties.
You never mentioned alternatives?
"The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet."
Was that you? Correct me if I'm wrong.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Other Things the TSA could do to prevent terror attacks with planes, AKA, the follies of hindsight.
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
On the post: TSA Likely To Face Multiple Sexual Assault Charges For New Searches
Israel
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Please don't fly
What is the solution? Tell me! Any ideas? Quit crying, take a train, boat. Don't get me killed.
On the post: Animated Version Of TSA Naked Scans And Gropings
No stats on lives saved... yet
What does one suggest we do to stop someone with a bomb sewn into their underwear? Just ask? Use the honor system? How about separate flights for those refusing the "grope" or scan? Let them all fly together, then we can gather some statistics on lives saved.
On the post: Guy Fined For Posting Links To Official Broadcast Of Hockey Games
Next >>