TSA scanners and Islam

[Sledge]

Well, the problem is that it can't prevent that from happening again.

Hence my use of the word "helps."

Oh, and my logic would not see the banning of cars. It would ensure that people given the right to drive a car are fit to do so. Do you object to that?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Born near Frankfurt, raised near Alkmaar in the Netherlands.

But my mom and the german half of our family never stopped talking Hessisch to us

You hail from the Ruhr Area, so why aren't you into the Fashing yet?

Because i don't buy into that crap

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Hence my use of the word "helps."

Oh, and my logic would not see the banning of cars. It would ensure that people given the right to drive a car are fit to do so. Do you object to that?

Yes, i do. Because, for one, people change. And then, people who intend to do malice can modify their short-term behavior during tests, just to reach their goal. They would simply act as if they were decent people.

Just because someone got a drivers license does not mean she/he will behave as learned all the time. Otherwise we would have far less traffic accidents, and stuff like breathalizers wouldn't be needed at all.

Fact is, people are people. What you see is rarely what you get. And again, we are talking about people who are willing and fully aware to commit suicide. They will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. There is simply nothing to stop them from that. The only effect all these anti-terror stuff has is a short, temporary "relief" from a threat (and i wouldn't even call it a real relief), while the regular people will have to suffer from things like privacy invasion all the time. And, in addition, people are put into constant fear of a threat that is far less serious as they want us to believe.

Really, the (poor) results doesn't justify the means. It has gone way out of proportion.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[I Ratant]

I know a driver who really shouldn't get her license back!

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes, planes can be turned into weapons. In fact, pretty much everything can be turned into a weapon. But does that really justify these extensive measures? Do people really have to accept such intrusions into their privacy?

However, many people die every years due to traffic accidents. They die because doctors or surgeons make mistakes. Many people get stabbed to death by other people using ordinary knifes. Many people die because they live an unhealthy life.

Should we now go ahead and impose very strict regulations if someone wants to drive a car? Or wants to use a knife? If we impose the use of airbags onto people, why not impose the requirement to live a healthy life as well?

*snippity snip*

Chris

Basically I think it is as Sledge pointed out ... and it's not so much a matter of terrorism/no terrorism, etc and so forth. It's a matter of the amount of life that can be lost by a single instance/vehicle/etc.

A knife probably won't kill 3000 people at one time. And knives can be made out of anything handy really ... hence shivs, stakes, etc. So placing restrictions on knives isn't logical ... because anyone can fashion a weapon into a knife. But the "Average person" is not likely to go stab someone. And even if they did, they are not taking 3K people with them down.

Cars are another matter ... and that is why we do have laws governing them. Personally, I think getting a DL is a joke. But when I lived in Washington State, I was impressed with their driver's test, and I actually failed it. I knew many people that had failed it. I think laws on driving should be much stricter personally. Because more people do die each year from motor accidents than other forms of events. But what is the likelihood of such a mass loss of life from one vehicle? It is likely, but percentage wise it isn't as common perhaps.

Now can the average person assemble a missle from scratch that take out 3000 people at a time? They can assemble bombs, etc and so forth .... which are small and easy to conceal. You would literally have to have strict measures enforced at any and every location to try and catch bombers. But planes are much more obvious. They are a missle that takes off daily across the skies, and can cause a massive amount of life lost and destruction and infrastructure damage in a single strike. They are no longer just "travel vehicles". They are potential weapons ---- of MASS DESTRUCTION.

And I used caps there not for the "holy S%%%% terrorists!" effect ... but to single out the fact they can cause such massive loss of life and damage in one instance. A gun can only cause so much. A knife can only cause so much. We typically have stricter laws for more "dangerous liberties".

I can understand the view of the safety measures being ridiculous compared to, say, the amount of car accidents each year. But again ... you have to look at how much damage a single instance can cause, and what is the frequency of those instances happening? It's why we have laws concerning certain substances, for example, so the average person can't go to Walmart and make a bomb and blow up a building. The damage a single instance of C4 could cause is immense. And it might be relatively cheap to make. Concerning weapons, of course, Some countries banned guns all together .... good for them! Some countries have tried to limit the amount of vehicles on the road in various ways. Good for them! Maybe we will find an answer to help stop traffic related auto deaths. Public transportation could eventually become MANDATORY for repeat offenders for example. These are luxuries anyway ... flight, guns, cars, etc. They are not necessities to live.

 

[Sledge]

Yes, i do. Because, for one, people change. And then, people who intend to do malice can modify their short-term behavior during tests, just to reach their goal. They would simply act as if they were decent people.

I wasn't aware that driving tests were intended to weed out potential terrorists. I'm not sure if I'm learning something new about your native land of if you're barking up the wrong tree.

Just because someone got a drivers license does not mean she/he will behave as learned all the time. Otherwise we would have far less traffic accidents, and stuff like breathalizers wouldn't be needed at all.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying seems to be that we should abolish driving tests.

Fact is, people are people. What you see is rarely what you get. And again, we are talking about people who are willing and fully aware to commit suicide. They will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. There is simply nothing to stop them from that.

I would have thought that depriving them of weapons would go a long way towards that goal.

The only effect all these anti-terror stuff has is a short, temporary "relief" from a threat (and i wouldn't even call it a real relief), while the regular people will have to suffer from things like privacy invasion all the time.

That and ensuring that people don't carry weapons onto planes. But hey, I'm sure it's more important that no one is even remotely embarrassed than people are stopped from carrying weapons onto planes.

And, in addition, people are put into constant fear of a threat that is far less serious as they want us to believe.

Sorry, not following. How is the threat less serious? The threat is people who have demonstrated the capability and willingness to hijack aircraft and crash them into buildings. That seems pretty damn serious to me.

Really, the (poor) results doesn't justify the means. It has gone way out of proportion.

I disagree.

 

[realpaladin]

Basically I think it is as Sledge pointed out ... and it's not so much a matter of terrorism/no terrorism, etc and so forth. It's a matter of the amount of life that can be lost by a single instance/vehicle/etc.
<snippety>
could eventually become MANDATORY for repeat offenders for example. These are luxuries anyway ... flight, guns, cars, etc. They are not necessities to live.

I do agree with your reasons for *wanting* to do everything on security, but I am arguing that there is no way you can secure an airplane AND make it user-friendly for the travellers.

Let me paint you a sick scenario I can think of in a matter of seconds (this is not really me):

* I want to hijack a plane and redo 9/11
* I love God/Allah/Jehova/Spaghetti monster more than anything so I have no moral qualms about *anything* I do.
* I bring my kid of about 8 on the flight
* We book 1st class
* I have the kid bug the stewardess/Pilot to 'have a view of the cockpit whilst flying'
* If it does not work on this flight, we take another one, until a pilot is willing to bend the rules
* When we get into the cockpit I have the kid sit on the lap of the co-pilot
* Then I snap the neck of the pilot, ram a shiv in the on-board engineer and then use that to kill the co-pilot.
* I kick out the kid and close the entry-proof door.

I now have an airplane at my command.

And yes, there are lots of snags here, but I can think up this scenario without months of planning, bribing etc.

As long as there is a human being in the equation I can win.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Basically I think it is as Sledge pointed out ... and it's not so much a matter of terrorism/no terrorism, etc and so forth. It's a matter of the amount of life that can be lost by a single instance/vehicle/etc.

A knife probably won't kill 3000 people at one time. And knives can be made out of anything handy really ... hence shivs, stakes, etc. So placing restrictions on knives isn't logical ... because anyone can fashion a weapon into a knife. But the "Average person" is not likely to go stab someone. And even if they did, they are not taking 3K people with them down.

Cars are another matter ... and that is why we do have laws governing them. Personally, I think getting a DL is a joke. But when I lived in Washington State, I was impressed with their driver's test, and I actually failed it. I knew many people that had failed it. I think laws on driving should be much stricter personally. Because more people do die each year from motor accidents than other forms of events. But what is the likelihood of such a mass loss of life from one vehicle? It is likely, but percentage wise it isn't as common perhaps.

Now can the average person assemble a missle from scratch that take out 3000 people at a time? They can assemble bombs, etc and so forth .... which are small and easy to conceal. You would literally have to have strict measures enforced at any and every location to try and catch bombers. But planes are much more obvious. They are a missle that takes off daily across the skies, and can cause a massive amount of life lost and destruction and infrastructure damage in a single strike. They are no longer just "travel vehicles". They are potential weapons ---- of MASS DESTRUCTION.

And I used caps there not for the "holy S%%%% terrorists!" effect ... but to single out the fact they can cause such massive loss of life and damage in one instance. A gun can only cause so much. A knife can only cause so much. We typically have stricter laws for more "dangerous liberties".

I can understand the view of the safety measures being ridiculous compared to, say, the amount of car accidents each year. But again ... you have to look at how much damage a single instance can cause, and what is the frequency of those instances happening? It's why we have laws concerning certain substances, for example, so the average person can't go to Walmart and make a bomb and blow up a building. The damage a single instance of C4 could cause is immense. And it might be relatively cheap to make. Concerning weapons, of course, Some countries banned guns all together .... good for them! Some countries have tried to limit the amount of vehicles on the road in various ways. Good for them! Maybe we will find an answer to help stop traffic related auto deaths. Public transportation could eventually become MANDATORY for repeat offenders for example. These are luxuries anyway ... flight, guns, cars, etc. They are not necessities to live.

Did you know that you can mail-order strains of cholera and other virii rather simple? Using a virus of a pest that was thought to be gone long ago can cause immense havoc. And we are talking magnitudes more than 3k people here. No need to build a missile for that. A simple letter sent to some person in some city is enough.

As for planes, there is absolutely no need to take real weapons or explosives on board. All that is needed is to be "convincing enough" to get into the cockpit. Maybe hard to do for a single person, but surely easy for a group of four or more.

I don't know what stuff a WallMart in the US has to offer. But over here, you can get pretty much everything to build a bomb. Fertilizers, acids, H2O2, etc. No big deal. While they demand your ID on a chemicals supply shop, even if you buy small quantities of stuff, you can get basically the same things en-masse in a local home-improvement store. No big deal, really.

And no, i do not make much difference between what a single attack can cause compared to the accumulated death's of a single thing. As you said, the frequency of such happenings is important.

Now, let me ask you: How many planes have been flown into buildings during the past, lets say, 50 years. Now compare to the numbers of death's caused by car accidents. Which number is bigger?

I remember the bombing that happened at the Olympic games in Munich in 1972. While this is my date of birth, it is also a part of my countries history and as such, i learned about it. Let's face it, that incident was the last big terrorist attack on german soil. But since then, nobody thought of forbidding public waste baskets just because someone could put a bomb in there. However, because of an attack in the US we have to suffer big invasions into out privacy now.

Let me take the issue to an extreme. It is quite clear that a suicide bomber can swallow explosives and then ignite them by means of a radio remote, for example. While blowing up yourself in a plane would destroy only that plane in primary, it still can happen. Now, all the scanners we have so far can not detect that someone has swallowed such stuff.

What would you propose? To have all passengers cut open prior to boarding a plane, just to make sure that a _very_ few can not cause havoc? If not, why not? And again, to hijack a plane, having explosives doesn't matter. The flight personnel has to believe you that you can cause havoc to let you into the cockpit. And that you can do without any nasty stuff at all.

".... flight, guns, cars, etc. They are not necessities to live."

Well, for the guns, maybe yes. But then i guess that quite some people who believe in the right to defend yourself would disagree. What about if 4 bad people on a plane want to do nasty stuff, but 20 others point their gun at them to avoid that? In the worst case they shoot a few and then get killed, but they wont be able to fly the plane into a building. From that POV, is it really bad to have firearms on a plane? Or is it that you simply do not trust your fellow citizens to be good people?

As for flying and driving, i strongly disagree with your opinion that they are no necessities. How do you get to your job? What about people who have to drive a lot of KM each day to get to work and back? Do you really want to say that they do not need to do so? If so, then you also have to tell the companies to only employ people that live local to the office these people are intended to work at. Or to pay further education for them to make them fit to actually take that job.

You see, it's not all that simple. And in the end we all have to suffer because of some misconducts of a few crazy people. Again, loosing 3k+ people in one incident is really bad. Bu more people die very year through other things that we simply do not care about or do not have the capabilities to avoid. A healthy civilization has to be able to cope with such losses without imposing insane measures onto the "good" people just because something bad could happen.

As soon as you start with such limits, you have no way to tell where to draw the line, because in such a case _everything_ would be OK. Even if it intrudes the lives of millions of people over the course of many decades just to stop a single incident. That's just not worth it, IMHO.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

I wasn't aware that driving tests were intended to weed out potential terrorists. I'm not sure if I'm learning something new about your native land of if you're barking up the wrong tree.
The logical conclusion of what you're saying seems to be that we should abolish driving tests.

You either want to misunderstand what i wrote, or you are ignoring the overall death's caused.

Far more people die every year by car accidents than dying by stupid people flying planes into buildings. If you have solid numbers that show otherwise, please show them.

And that is only for car accidents. Not by other accidents caused by other people that kill people.

The logical conclusion of what i am saying is by no means to abolish driver tests. If you want to get that from what i said, so be it. But then you are willfully misinterpret what i have said.

I would have thought that depriving them of weapons would go a long way towards that goal.
That and ensuring that people don't carry weapons onto planes. But hey, I'm sure it's more important that no one is even remotely embarrassed than people are stopped from carrying weapons onto planes.

See my post before this one. Depriving people of weapons is only a marginal solution. In fact, weapons are not really needed to do what these crazy people want to do.

Remember. They want to fly a plane into a building. A weapon only helps them to kill a few passengers. Nothing more. Point is to get into the cockpit and get control of the plane. For that, it doesn't matter if you really have a weapon or simply say you have one.

Sorry, not following. How is the threat less serious? The threat is people who have demonstrated the capability and willingness to hijack aircraft and crash them into buildings. That
seems pretty damn serious to me.

Exactly. And they want to do that by all means. And they are happy to get killed by doing so. This, again, does not require actual weapons.

However, 99.999~% of the passengers do not want to do that. So, in effect, 99.999~% of the passengers are invaded in their privacy because of that "single" incident. Yes, i know it was not a single plane. But the incident as such was a single one. How often did that happen in the whole history of passenger flight before that? And how often afterwards?

I disagree.

You are welcome to do so. I'm already happy that people don't jump onto my comments or me simply because i try to put 9/11 into relation to other bad things. I seriously expected worse. Thanks for that!

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Ladewig]

* I have the kid bug the stewardess/Pilot to 'have a view of the cockpit whilst flying'
* If it does not work on this flight, we take another one, until a pilot is willing to bend the rules

I would be flabbergasted to the point of speechlessness if you could successfully use that reason to enter a cockpit.

Given that the downside is getting killed or losing one's job, why would a pilot engage in an action that has absolutely no upside?

 

[Sledge]

You either want to misunderstand what i wrote, or you are ignoring the overall death's caused.

I'm not really clear on why you introduced the unrelated concept of driving tests into a thread on airline security. I'm hoping that if I go along with it, you'll get to a point.

Far more people die every year by car accidents than dying by stupid people flying planes into buildings. If you have solid numbers that show otherwise, please show them.

Still not seeing where you're going.

And that is only for car accidents. Not by other accidents caused by other people that kill people.

... nope, still waiting on the relevance.

The logical conclusion of what i am saying is by no means to abolish driver tests. If you want to get that from what i said, so be it. But then you are willfully misinterpret what i have said.

To be honest, my logical conclusion is that you've introduced something totally irrelevant to the discussion, but don't want to say "Sorry, I don't know where I was going with this. Can we drop the whole thing and get back to the topic?"

See my post before this one. Depriving people of weapons is only a marginal solution. In fact, weapons are not really needed to do what these crazy people want to do.

Really? So if you were sitting on a plane, someone saying they had a knife or gun would be enough for you to say "Fair enough. Here's the cockpit, let me know if you want any drinks sent from the galley, we're off to cower in business class"? Maybe that's true for you, but I think most people would want to see the weapon first.

Remember. They want to fly a plane into a building. A weapon only helps them to kill a few passengers. Nothing more. Point is to get into the cockpit and get control of the plane. For that, it doesn't matter if you really have a weapon or simply say you have one.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Based on what you've said so far, I'm going to say "no." This is unmitigated twaddle.

Exactly. And they want to do that by all means. And they are happy to get killed by doing so. This, again, does not require actual weapons.

See above. Twaddle.

However, 99.999~% of the passengers do not want to do that. So, in effect, 99.999~% of the passengers are invaded in their privacy because of that "single" incident. Yes, i know it was not a single plane. But the incident as such was a single one. How often did that happen in the whole history of passenger flight before that? And how often afterwards?

18 per year between 1988 and 1997, if Wiki is correct. Or are we talking only about instances where the hijacked aircraft is deliberately crashed? I don't think it makes much difference.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Sledge,

thanks for not reading and refusing to understand what i said.

18 per year between 1988 and 1997, if Wiki is correct. Or are we talking only about instances where the hijacked aircraft is deliberately crashed? I don't think it makes much difference.

So, it does not make any difference to you if something is "simply" hijacked, or if it is hijacked to cause a lot of death's? Great! So, a simple car-jacking then is the same as hijacking a car and driving it into a crowd of people.

Of course it makes much difference if we are to talk about planes being used to crash into buildings.

But again, thanks for not reading.

 

[Piggy]

Given that the downside is getting killed or losing one's job, why would a pilot engage in an action that has absolutely no upside?

 

[Sledge]

Sledge,

thanks for not reading and refusing to understand what i said.

What am I not understanding? Don't just throw out some lame allegation, explain yourself.

So, it does not make any difference to you if something is "simply" hijacked, or if it is hijacked to cause a lot of death's? Great! So, a simple car-jacking then is the same as hijacking a car and driving it into a crowd of people.

Again with this attempt at an analogy to cars. Cars are not planes. Please try and understand this. You cannot make a point about one and assume that it automatically applies to another, especially when WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CARS. Please try and keep to the topic at hand.

Of course it makes much difference if we are to talk about planes being used to crash into buildings.

So it's better to be killed on the plane as a hostage than to be killed as a byproduct of it being rammed into a building? Whilst the people in the building would probably agree, I'm not sure it matters to the guy being killed in the plane.

But again, thanks for not reading.

Can the condescension and explain what you're blathering on about.

 

[Soapy Sam]

For those who don't want to read the whole article below the jist is that certain muslim religious leaders have issued a fatwa against the use of airport scanners as it violates their modesty (the muslims not the scanners.)

http://www.freep.com/article/201002...body-scanners-violate-Islamic-law-Muslims-say

Then I found this...

http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/travel_tips.htm

...it was refreshing and measured and practical. Looks like there are some grown ups among this religion after all. Not getting my hopes up though, just pleasently suprised.

I occasionally wonder if the "Muslims object to (x)" card is sometimes played by the NWO to convince the rest of us that (x) is fine and dandy and just what we always wanted.

 

[Christian Klippel]

What am I not understanding? Don't just throw out some lame allegation, explain yourself.
Again with this attempt at an analogy to cars. Cars are not planes. Please try and understand this. You cannot make a point about one and assume that it automatically applies to another, especially when WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CARS. Please try and keep to the topic at hand.
So it's better to be killed on the plane as a hostage than to be killed as a byproduct of it being rammed into a building? Whilst the people in the building would probably agree, I'm not sure it matters to the guy being killed in the plane.

Can the condescension and explain what you're blathering on about.

I'm pretty well aware that cars are not plane. I simply have choose cars vs. planes to make it clear that people get killed by both. And furthermore, that far more people get killed by cars than by planes.

We are talking about extreme security measures to attempt to reduce killings done by few crazy people. The point, from me, is that there is no way to really avoid that from happening. Stuff X done by Y kills people, and so do terrorists on their nutty "mission".

If it is really about preventing people from getting killed, then we have to impose the same restrictions and controls from people wanting to use cars. Because, and here is the "analogy" again, due to cars far more people die, on a _constant_basis_ every year, than people dying from nutjobs steering planes into buildings.

That's simply a fact that i think no one can reasonably deny.

And yes, if it comes to comparing the number of deaths, it is far better to have a few hostages on plane killed than to use that plane to kill even more people.

I repeat myself here, but these people, who want to use planes as weapons, can not be stopped. No matter what.

You said something like that someone would have to show his weapon on a plane to make a difference, instead of actually having that weapon. Now let me ask you: If i would shout "Let me into the cockpit, or i blow up this plane!" while holding some gray goo in one hand, and a blinky button in another. What do you expect to happen? That people stand up and say "I don't believe you! Blow it up now, so i can be sure it is really some explosive!", or that they are afraid and give me what i want?

And what if i am not alone, but in company of a few others proclaiming the same thing? How would _you_ try to make sure that i'm not bluffing? Are you even in a position to verify my claims then? And can you expect to have someone with the proper knowledge on every plane in the world, just to tell the people "Hey, he is kidding, that's not real explosives. calm down!"?

Again, and i can not stress this enough: These people have already decided to die for what they want to do. You can not stop them from doing so. You may stop a few, but more are coming after, just to make sure that the "goal" is reached. They are crazy fanatics.

Yes, the death they cause is really sad, and i too wish it could be avoided. But it simply can not. By imposing stupid anti-terror laws upon people you achieve exactly nothing besides upsetting a lot af harmless people. The nutjobs will find a way around these "problems".

People die in every society due to things that are well understood and legal in these societies. Again, take cars for example (!). But still we dont go around and do extensive security checks on someone each time that someone wants to use a car. We simply take the risk that he may kill someone by using the car. Summing up the dead people from car accidents simply gives a much higher number each year than people getting killed by nutjobs using planes as weapons.

Just because a single thing can be used to kill thousand people doesn't make it more or less dangerous than thousand same things used by thousand people to kill thousand other people. In the end it's just a number: 1000 dead people.

And as long as that number is higher for things like car accidents compared to the number of people killed by planes, there simply is no justification for all that extreme security nonsense.

And as i said already: The thing is just not extreme security on airports. There are far to many things imposed on us in the recent years after 9/11 that i consider a heavy, unjustified intrusion into my private sphere.

In fact, what my government tells me is: I assume you are a terrorist. So i will check you and spy on you as much as i want. You may prove to be otherwise, but still then i continue spying on you.

And that is plain wrong. Just because a very few crazy people do nasty stuff doesn't mean that _i_ have to suffer from that.

Life as is is lethal. A society has to cope with crazy people killing other people. But not by imposing this kind of insanity-by-security onto everyone. Doing so simply means to concede that the others have won. They caused us to live in constant fear, where there is no real reason to be more fearful than usual.

Is that really that hard to understand?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fact is, far more people have died in the last 10 years (and in the 10 years before 9/11) than at 9/11 itself. Don't get me wrong, every loss of a living person is a tragedy for all involved. But i think that that the sense of proportion is pretty much lost since 9/11.

We simply can not control all the people. We can try to impose more and more restrictions, but the effect would be just that those who want to do harm, will find more and more ways to circumvent these restrictions.

A democratic society has to live with these things, as hard as it may seems at a glance. But there is just no way around it. No one will ever get 100% security. No society will ever have 100% law abiding people.

On the other hand, all these "anti terror laws" and procedures put the people into constant fear of possible attacks. Wherever you go, or if you want to travel, you are reminded of that fear. It pushed and and pushed. The society changes towards one that fears all and everyone that may look/behave suspiciously in the slightest. Even if, as in most cases, there is no reason to think something bad about that person. A state of constant, exaggerated fear can and will change the people living in/under it.

And in this way, the terrorists have won a significant victory over us. They've scared us so much that our governments are driven to impose extreme and unreasonable security measures that violate our most basic privacy rights; and they have scared us so much that we, the common people, will tolerate these violations.

 

[Trent Wray]

I do agree with your reasons for *wanting* to do everything on security, but I am arguing that there is no way you can secure an airplane AND make it user-friendly for the travellers.

* I want to hijack a plane and redo 9/11
* I love God/Allah/Jehova/Spaghetti monster more than anything so I have no moral qualms about *anything* I do.
* I bring my kid of about 8 on the flight
* We book 1st class
* I have the kid bug the stewardess/Pilot to 'have a view of the cockpit whilst flying'
* If it does not work on this flight, we take another one, until a pilot is willing to bend the rules
* When we get into the cockpit I have the kid sit on the lap of the co-pilot
* Then I snap the neck of the pilot, ram a shiv in the on-board engineer and then use that to kill the co-pilot.
* I kick out the kid and close the entry-proof door.

Oh I wasn't saying that it would still be user friendly for passengers. I agree that to "make it safe as possible" would not only be inconveniencing, but probably more close to having an interrogation type of experience.

And the word "shiv" was used twice in the same thread! One of my favorite words ... call me an 'ol softy LOL

Did you know ... *peaceful snip*

Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive --- why/why not?

And also, do you think people should be able to own their own ICBM's .... why/why not?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive --- why/why not?

And also, do you think people should be able to own their own ICBM's .... why/why not?

It's rather hard to wear a seat belt on a bicycle. I don't have car, not even a drivers license, because i simply don't need it.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a ICBM?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Travis]

I'm pretty well aware that cars are not plane. I simply have choose cars vs. planes to make it clear that people get killed by both. And furthermore, that far more people get killed by cars than by planes.

Name one car accident that killed 3000 people. Just one.

We are talking about extreme security measures to attempt to reduce killings done by few crazy people. The point, from me, is that there is no way to really avoid that from happening. Stuff X done by Y kills people, and so do terrorists on their nutty "mission".

Cops will never catch all the criminals. So let's just do away with cops!

If it is really about preventing people from getting killed, then we have to impose the same restrictions and controls from people wanting to use cars. Because, and here is the "analogy" again, due to cars far more people die, on a _constant_basis_ every year, than people dying from nutjobs steering planes into buildings.

Most people who die in cars die from a thing called an "accident."

That's simply a fact that i think no one can reasonably deny.

It's a fact that is irrelevant. Here's another fact: vending machines kill more people than sharks! Should we just now never ever look out for sharks near beaches until we have a nationwide Vending Machine Watch Force?

And yes, if it comes to comparing the number of deaths, it is far better to have a few hostages on plane killed than to use that plane to kill even more people.

I repeat myself here, but these people, who want to use planes as weapons, can not be stopped. No matter what.

So your solution is to make it as easy as possible for them to do it? You really are a closet anarchist aren't you? Or is your point that we should revert to total fascism?

You said something like that someone would have to show his weapon on a plane to make a difference, instead of actually having that weapon. Now let me ask you: If i would shout "Let me into the cockpit, or i blow up this plane!" while holding some gray goo in one hand, and a blinky button in another. What do you expect to happen? That people stand up and say "I don't believe you! Blow it up now, so i can be sure it is really some explosive!", or that they are afraid and give me what i want?

If I'm there I'm tackling you because I have nothing to lose. Either it's a fake bomb, in which case I'm safe and you are heading for a beating, or it's real and you blow me up there or get into the cockpit and kill me when we hit the target.

And what if i am not alone, but in company of a few others proclaiming the same thing? How would _you_ try to make sure that i'm not bluffing? Are you even in a position to verify my claims then? And can you expect to have someone with the proper knowledge on every plane in the world, just to tell the people "Hey, he is kidding, that's not real explosives. calm down!"?

See my point above.

Again, and i can not stress this enough: These people have already decided to die for what they want to do. You can not stop them from doing so. You may stop a few, but more are coming after, just to make sure that the "goal" is reached. They are crazy fanatics.

"Crazy?" Yes. Invincible? No.

Yes, the death they cause is really sad, and i too wish it could be avoided. But it simply can not. By imposing stupid anti-terror laws upon people you achieve exactly nothing besides upsetting a lot af harmless people. The nutjobs will find a way around these "problems".

The laws are only stupid to you. You seem to think all attempts at law and order are pointless. Perhaps you should immigrate to Somalia?

People die in every society due to things that are well understood and legal in these societies. Again, take cars for example (!). But still we dont go around and do extensive security checks on someone each time that someone wants to use a car. We simply take the risk that he may kill someone by using the car. Summing up the dead people from car accidents simply gives a much higher number each year than people getting killed by nutjobs using planes as weapons.

Wrong. We regulate cars to the best of our ability. But, as you noted, the people that die in them mostly die from "accidents." A completely different thing from "homicide."

Just because a single thing can be used to kill thousand people doesn't make it more or less dangerous than thousand same things used by thousand people to kill thousand other people. In the end it's just a number: 1000 dead people.

It's only a number to you because you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what those numbers mean.

And as long as that number is higher for things like car accidents compared to the number of people killed by planes, there simply is no justification for all that extreme security nonsense.

Wrong. The day one car can be easily used to kill 3000 people is the day your point has any relevance.

And as i said already: The thing is just not extreme security on airports. There are far to many things imposed on us in the recent years after 9/11 that i consider a heavy, unjustified intrusion into my private sphere.

I'm telling you, Somalia. There you can live out your anarchist fantasies. Rule your hovel as a King!

In fact, what my government tells me is: I assume you are a terrorist. So i will check you and spy on you as much as i want. You may prove to be otherwise, but still then i continue spying on you.

And that is plain wrong. Just because a very few crazy people do nasty stuff doesn't mean that _i_ have to suffer from that.

And, get this, they also regulate explosives! I mean how much do we explosive hoarders have to "suffer" because of a "few crazy people?"

Life as is is lethal. A society has to cope with crazy people killing other people.

Yes, through law and order. Something the Sumerians figured out 7000 years ago.

But not by imposing this kind of insanity-by-security onto everyone.

In bizarro world your ideas have merit. Otherwise those 7000 years since the Sumerians prove you wrong.

Doing so simply means to concede that the others have won. They caused us to live in constant fear, where there is no real reason to be more fearful than usual.

Is that really that hard to understand?

Greetings,

Chris

Write me from Somalia and we will see how "hard it is to understand."