TSA scanners and Islam

[Robin]

Which actually should make most of the women happy...

"Look honey! See I am a 36!"

Or maybe "Oh my god, I married George Jetson!".

 

[Trent Wray]

No, that's certainly not my point of view. ...
... Yes, it is pretty obvious that a single plane crash, even if the plane just crashes over some empty land, costs a lot of lives.

... That crashing a plane into a building has a big impact, is also pretty clear.

... If we are to argue about the overall impact, you can not compare a single car accident to a single incident of a plane crashing into a building.

... The point regarding fear is indeed a valid one. But that goes into psychology as well, and i have little knowledge of that when it comes to many people at once.

... Of course it should be tried to prevent that from happening again.

... Airport security scan's are simply the most obvious and visible things related to that.

... As i said above, i have little knowledge about the psychological reactions of "masses" to such things. It is my point of view that ...

Thank you for basically agreeing with me And I'm saying that in a nice way.

And I do have experience with masses reacting psychologically to events. I'm a medic and also have specific training to aide in mass casualty incidents, basic and advanced disaster life support, etc and so forth. I've also personally been involved in riots, bomb threats, and the threat of chemical attacks / missile raids --- from a civilians point of view. There are certain incidents that are more likely to cause certain group reactions ... even on a global scale at times ... then others. It is the way people view things at times ... and at times the minority needs to be considered first and foremost and at other times the majority does. But sometimes compromise is the best policy ... like holding your breath underwater.

... I simply think that this should not be done at any price

And so you basically agree with me ... you just do not agree that the cost and benefit are equal. They are out of balance. But let me ask you ... how many planes have been flown into buildings, crippling economies and city infrastructure since 9/11? Why do you think that is?

Why do you think the US and former Soviet Union never annihilated each other during the Cold War?

Deterant. Massive show of force. Etc. Sometimes it "works". Sometimes it is unnecessary. So do you think our continual step-up in airport security has worked? Again ... how many planes since 9/11 have been hijacked and flown into buildings?

How many times does your house need to be robbed before you finally decide to lock the doors every night?

... Airlines do not check every single component and screw and stuff before a plane takes off. While they do extensive checking and service (well, most do), they also consider what is an useful amount of checking, and at what point it would be "overdoing" it.

This doesn't cause mass panic, but bombs and hijacking typically does. If an airline company has a plane crash from "missing screws" etc, the sales for that company typically go down and can eventually put them out of business as people lose trust in that company.

... If people would be made more aware of the risks of participating in traffic, for example, they would start to think differently about that. And by "made more aware" i mean the same level of reporting, news coverage, etc. that is done with terrorism. Imagine each and every accident would result in a 1 hour programme about it. Followed by another two hours about the now increased overall number of people killed, the impact on economy, etc.

So fear mongering and use of resources in the name of automobile accident awareness is allright, but when it's done concerning airflight travel it's near-conspiracy-theory levels?

 

[Cavemonster]

So once again it comes down to "this one thing can't solve all problems, so why bother." I simply don't see how this logic works. To borrow Christian's beloved car analogy, it's like saying "Ok, airbags help in a collision, but what if the petrol tank explodes? Therefore airbags are an unnecessary inconvenience."

Well no, it isn't like that at all.
Against accidents and physics, any improvement is a good improvement, but against a thinking enemy, any hole in defenses is enough.

Airbags are useful because you still get into accidents where they save you. The equivalent would be that "accidents" can just decide to attack your gas tank instead.

 

[Sledge]

Wow... you just skim over posts... don't you?

No. I can only assume you're projecting.

No. The discussion is whether the argument should be a fully-covering 'it makes airtravel safer, so all who object stfu' versus an honest 'with this equipment there is a lessened chance that people can bring foreign objects on the plane that are designed to do harm'.

You're the one bringing other scenarios into it. Weapons scanners will hopefully find weapons and prevent them getting onto planes. I agree that they won't help in your "I will get my child to nag our way into the cockpit, at which point I will kill both pilots (using the child as a bludgeon, I presume)" scenario, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. Like I said, you're complaining that the scanners can't prevent a scenario that they're not intended to have anything to do with.

As for the last one, I do agree with. But it would also open the TSA for valid arguments to provide alternatives for people that have valid reasons not to want to go through such a scanner.

As the alternative would presumably be being strip-searched or at least touched up by a security guard, I wonder how many people would suddenly decide that the scanners aren't that invasive after all?

Well no, it isn't like that at all.

Yes it is.

Against accidents and physics, any improvement is a good improvement, but against a thinking enemy, any hole in defenses is enough.

So we should do everything we can to plug those holes, right?

Airbags are useful because you still get into accidents where they save you. The equivalent would be that "accidents" can just decide to attack your gas tank instead.

Ok, forget the idea of accidents. Airbags are useful if someone rams into your car, but not if someone plants a bomb under your car. The fact airbags or scanners at airports only deal with one aspect of the threat doesn't mean we should just go "Meh, what's the point? They'll only find some other way to kill us."

 

[realpaladin]

No. I can only assume you're projecting.

Assumption is a mother of f*ckups.

You're the one bringing other scenarios into it. Weapons scanners will hopefully find weapons and prevent them getting onto planes. I agree that they won't help in your "I will get my child to nag our way into the cockpit, at which point I will kill both pilots (using the child as a bludgeon, I presume)" scenario, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. Like I said, you're complaining that the scanners can't prevent a scenario that they're not intended to have anything to do with.

The OP is about TSA scanners and Islam. Not only about TSA scanners.

Are you sure you are not just cherrypicking?

As the alternative would presumably be being strip-searched or at least touched up by a security guard, I wonder how many people would suddenly decide that the scanners aren't that invasive after all?

That is a matter of taste and people then have a choice. Also, it is in no way an argument that the scanners are the only solution.

And as I said before, the TSA is not very good at it's job. Book a nightflight and be annoying and you can with moderate ease 24 lighters and 0.5 litres of alcohol through.

My argument, as you can only do ad-hominem's and arguments from incredulity, stands; if you want to make people safer in airtravel, the only way is to treat them completely as prisoners.

Anything less is just spin and marketing.

 

[Christian Klippel]

And so you basically agree with me ... you just do not agree that the cost and benefit are equal. They are out of balance. But let me ask you ... how many planes have been flown into buildings, crippling economies and city infrastructure since 9/11? Why do you think that is?

None. And how often did that happen before 9/11? Not simply hijacked, but actually flown into buildings?

And while it is all fine to speculate that it did not happen again because of all the security measures, it is no proof that it did not happen because of that.

Actually, despite all that security, tests have shown that it still is possible to bring explosives and stuff onto planes. But again, my concern is just not airport security.

Why do you think the US and former Soviet Union never annihilated each other during the Cold War?

Because no side in the cold war was actually suicidal. You don't think for a second that if people like Osama bin Laden and his crowd had such an arsenal of nukes, that they would not use it?

Keep in mind that these people _want_ to die in such attacks. They blow themselves up to cause harm to other people. I highly doubt that there is much that would make them fear the consequences of their ill-doing.

Deterant. Massive show of force. Etc. Sometimes it "works". Sometimes it is unnecessary. So do you think our continual step-up in airport security has worked? Again ... how many planes since 9/11 have been hijacked and flown into buildings?

And also again, how many before? And where is the proof that it did not happen because of the airport security?

Was there no security before? No, there was, but it had flaws. And no matter how much fancy machinery you put there, there will always be a flaw or another.

How many times does your house need to be robbed before you finally decide to lock the doors every night?

That comparison doesn't hold. I am free to decide for myself if i want to lock my door or not. And if i don't want to lock it, i am fully aware of what can happen.

To compare "locking the door" to all the anti-terror measures in place by now, you would need to ask me if i would be happy if someone would force me to lock my door whenever that person thinks it is time to lock it. And if that person then goes on and tells me that after 10 p.m. there is no unlocking anymore until 8 a.m. the next morning.

I can _not_ choose to not have my financial transaction data recorded for the government. I can _not_ chose to not have all my phone call connections and internet surfing recorded and stored for 6 months.

However, i _can_ choose to my lock my door. I _can_ choose to use a seat belt or not.

That's a big difference.

So fear mongering and use of resources in the name of automobile accident awareness is allright, but when it's done concerning airflight travel it's near-conspiracy-theory levels?

Absolutely not. In fact, i say that any fear-mongering is to be avoided. And please refrain from accusing me of stuff like near-conspiracy theories. I never made any claim that could even remotely interpreted as such, and surely will never do.

But the fact is that a lot of laws have been passed and are active now that massively intrude the privacy of the people. And all of them in the name of fighting terrorism.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Trent Wray]

Actually, despite all that security, tests have shown that it still is possible to bring explosives and stuff onto planes. But again, my concern is just not airport security.

Because no side in the cold war was actually suicidal. You don't think for a second that if people like Osama bin Laden and his crowd had such an arsenal of nukes, that they would not use it?

Keep in mind that these people _want_ to die in such attacks. They blow themselves up to cause harm to other people. I highly doubt that there is much that would make them fear the consequences of their ill-doing.

You're making a pretty good case for beefing up airport security here ...

And please refrain from accusing me of stuff like near-conspiracy theories. I never made any claim that could even remotely interpreted as such, and surely will never do.

Sorry about that ... I was beginning to interpret your views a little that way, but it wasn't my intention to make you feel as though I was accusing you of something. Again , apologies . I like to try and play fair

 

[ddt]

And so you basically agree with me ... you just do not agree that the cost and benefit are equal. They are out of balance. But let me ask you ... how many planes have been flown into buildings, crippling economies and city infrastructure since 9/11? Why do you think that is?

None have been flown in before, and none after. Do you have any evidence at all that without the increased security, there would have been more? It would be a first-time that I'd actually hear a solid business case made in favour of the security measures.

Let's take another traffic example. In the 1990s, there were solid reports that in Holland, 30 cyclists died each year and another 90 were severely injured because they were overlooked in the blind spot of a truck. However, nothing was done. Until a well-known Dutch author, whose daughter died in just such an accident, and used her "celebrity" status to make a big stink about it. And even then, it wasn't even made into law, but the government made a "gentlemen's agreement" with the trucking industry.

And what was all that fuss about? The solution was simply to install an extra "blind spot" mirror, a one-time expenditure of 100, maybe 200 euro per truck.

So, can you make the case that the security measures at airports save 30 Dutch lives a year - scaled up for the US, that would be 600 US lives?

Moreover, it should be taken into account with such comparisons how intrusive the measures are. Blind spot mirrors, airbags, ABS, etc. are measures that do not intrude at all into the privacy, nor harass the users in any other way. Airport security, on the other hand, does intrude into my privacy, and harasses me every time I'm confronted by it. It harasses the vast majority of innocent airplane users. Contrast that with the blind spot mirror: that's only an imposition on the very group which risks running over cyclists.

I'm not as adventurous as realpaladin in smuggling stuff through security. But I am highly annoyed by it. I work as a real-time text captioner for deaf & heard-of-hearing, and as such have to fly a couple of times a year - within Europe, btw. My carry-on luggage contains my equipment: a laptop and a special keyboard (Apple II-era technology) and some cables and stuff. The rules whether you have to take out the laptop or not seem to change every couple of months. I have tried politely showing customs the keyboard and ask them if it had to be taken out as well and gotten reactions ranging from polite to near-rage. Invariably, after the checkpoint, I get to totally repack my bag of equipment, redress my shoes, my jacket and my overcoat which, of course, all arrive in the wrong order for me to reassemble. Oh, and once I packed a couple of screwdrivers and they got confiscated.

 

[Trent Wray]

None have been flown in before, and none after. Do you have any evidence at all that without the increased security, there would have been more?

That right there is the possible evidence imo.

 

[Christian Klippel]

That right there is the possible evidence imo.

Uhm, sorry, but no. The only thing that would count as evidence would be people that have been detected by all that security stuff who actually intended to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.

See, i have a magic crystal that causes elephants and lions to stay away from my front yard. Evidence: there are no elephants and lions in my front yard!

Would you really count that as (even only possible) evidence for my claim? I don't think so.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[ddt]

That right there is the possible evidence imo.

(bolding mine).

Possible evidence is not actual evidence. Where are the analyses and the reports how many terrorists have been stopped in their tracks by these security measures? All the while harassing millions of other people flying?

 

[I Ratant]

The increased (excessive) security AND the knowledge that the passengers will no longer go along with the attempt, as shown by the Christmas event have altered the methods of attack, to near abandonment of the idea.
(So far!)

 

[Trent Wray]

Uhm, sorry, but no. The only thing that would count as evidence would be people that have been detected by all that security stuff who actually intended to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.

See, i have a magic crystal that causes elephants and lions to stay away from my front yard. Evidence: there are no elephants and lions in my front yard!

Would you really count that as (even only possible) evidence for my claim? I don't think so.

Greetings,

Chris

Have you ever had elephants and lions enter your front yard? Then whatever method you used to try to prevent them from coming back .... if they never returned, it could be argued that it worked.

(bolding mine).

Possible evidence is not actual evidence. Where are the analyses and the reports how many terrorists have been stopped in their tracks by these security measures? All the while harassing millions of other people flying?

I only said "possible" because you could easily attribute the lack of planes flying into buildings from the excessive security being a deterant, but you cannot perhaps prove it is the cause behind the lack of attacks YET because I personally do not think there has been enough time pass yet to gather ample evidence.

The increased (excessive) security AND the knowledge that the passengers will no longer go along with the attempt, as shown by the Christmas event have altered the methods of attack, to near abandonment of the idea.
(So far!)

This

And not to be rude Chris / ddt .... but I'm kinda losing interest in this thread so please don't take my lack of posting in it "the wrong way" if at all possible. See you round the other threads, hopefully

 

[Christian Klippel]

And not to be rude Chris / ddt .... but I'm kinda losing interest in this thread so please don't take my lack of posting in it "the wrong way" if at all possible. See you round the other threads, hopefully

No worries, fair enough. Hoping the same here. After all, this is just a internet forum. And imagine how boring life would be if all the people had the same views on things. Then we would have nothing to discuss/debate/argue.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Trent Wray]

plane flown into building

Well, due to the plane attack in Austin, TX, I thought maybe this thread could get a few more posts out of itself.

USA Today: AUSTIN — As it dove out of the sky toward an IRS field office Thursday morning, Joseph Stack's small single-engine Piper Dakota became a screaming 3,000-pound missile.
"It was low, straight and fast," said Stuart Newberg, who was stopped at a traffic light when Stack's plane whizzed past before slamming into the offices that housed 190 IRS employees.

Stack, a 53-year-old software engineer apparently enraged over tax issues, plowed the plane into the side of the building, triggering a massive fireball that engulfed the offices.

He is presumed dead, and one other person in the building is believed to have been killed; 13 others were injured, two critically.

This, imo, is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make about the POTENTIAL damage an airplane can cause, and why such stringent guidelines for using them/traveling in them should be considered over, say, an automobile.

And although the loss of life was minimal, the potential loss of life was close to 200 or more (considering surrounding structures, passerbys, etc) not to mention the financial damage.

Now, a question could easily be .... did all the present security measures in place for passengers deter this guy from actually trying to hijack a large passenger jet, which could presumably do far more damage and cause much more loss of life? In other words, was this individual "limited" to having to fly his own, small plane into a building?

Furthermore, it's another example of someone whom you might never "suspect" due to racial profiling, and all the more reason why everyone should be scanned, perhaps.

Thoughts from those interested?