Why we will not be visiting the US in the forseeable future

Sorry to hear you won't come visit us. Brits are among my favorites...

But we're not exactly going to be totally bereft of visitors, what with all the herds of folks stampeding over the TX-NM-AZ-CA borders.

May I suggest flying into Mexico City and joining up with a herd of said migrants? Crossing the desert is kind of an occasionally fatal b*tch. But if you make it, what a postcard to send home to merry olde England, eh?

C'mon. Don't be such a wuss. When the security guards at the airports start getting all frisky and personal, just wink, flare your nostrils and ask him when he gets off work. He'll let you go with a quickness!
 
Chaos said:
Interesting people, aren´t they? They are so scared out of their wits (such as they are)
Click to expand...

Wow.
What a naked example of bigotry.
Is it just Americans that get your scorn or any other group of people?
 
Mike B. said:
Wow.
What a naked example of bigotry.
Is it just Americans that get your scorn or any other group of people?
Click to expand...
You fool, only Americans can be bigots. In fact, only white Americans. Don't you know anything??
 
Mike B. said:
Wow.
What a naked example of bigotry.
Is it just Americans that get your scorn or any other group of people?
Click to expand...

You´re the most visible example of behavior of deserving scorn, so don´t complain if you´re getting the majority of that.

Besides, you are also one example which, by virtue of being a free, democratic society, is creating the impression that criticism might actually be noted and could - possibly - lead to change.
 
bigred said:
First, changing the way our society operates by being (or trying to be) more secure after an attack is hardly "letting the terrorists win." It means we are trying to get better about preventing another such attack (or attacks in general). To do otherwise would be about as stupid as it gets. Now you can debate whether we're doing it right or not, but to make the effort is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
No, no... then the terrorists win! Here's what we should do so that we win. First, let it be known that we are so unafraid of the terrorists that we will stop checking anyone coming into the country. Eliminate the TSA, metal detectors and other screening at airports. Sell C4 and artillery shells at the duty-free shops. We win big! Win win win win win win!!!!!!!!


;)
 
luchog said:
Security technology Bruce Schneier has made some pointed analyses of many airport security practices and proposals. Most of them are there to defend against "hollywood threats", threats that look dramatic and scary, but have absolutely no basis in reality; and are fairly useless for real-world security. The "liquid explosives" threat being a fairly typical case in point.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous - the "liquid explosive" precaution was taken from very specific and credible intelligence of an actual plot. If you're not willing to react to something like that, then WTF are we screening airline passengers at all.
 
WildCat said:
No, no... then the terrorists win! Here's what we should do so that we win. First, let it be known that we are so unafraid of the terrorists that we will stop checking anyone coming into the country. Eliminate the TSA, metal detectors and other screening at airports. Sell C4 and artillery shells at the duty-free shops. We win big! Win win win win win win!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

My God Gump, you're a GD genius!!
 
Chaos said:
You´re the most visible example of behavior of deserving scorn, so don´t complain if you´re getting the majority of that.

Besides, you are also one example which, by virtue of being a free, democratic society, is creating the impression that criticism might actually be noted and could - possibly - lead to change.
Click to expand...

Who is "You're"?

Me? the present administration? Everyone? My two year old daughter?
 
bigred said:
We are probably (hopefully) closer in agreement than either of us realize and getting snagged on semantics. My point again (and pardon those who have heard me say this before) is freedoms are not and should be absolute. If they were, the result would be anarchy. Gov't by definition sacrifices some liberties, including some in the name of security, and your rights have always been restricted. As they should be. If disagree w/that idea, you believe in anarchy. I find THAT idea scary.
Click to expand...

I said 'inalienable'. Not absolute, not unrestricted.
You certainly have a point there, and it must be thrilling for you to have such an agglomeration of pointiness at your disposal, and I can understand how you might want to brag about your point whenever you get a chance, and I am certain you have pictures of your last vacation with your absolutely fabulous point, but it is not particularly relevant to my question.
 
Last edited:
fishbob said:
I said 'inalienable'. Not absolute, not unrestricted.
You certainly have a point there, and it must be thrilling for you to have such an agglomeration of pointiness at your disposal, and I can understand how you might want to brag about your point whenever you get a chance, and I am certain you have pictures of your last vacation with your absolutely fabulous point, but it is not particularly relevant to my question.
Click to expand...

Thanks for coming back just to ramble on incoherently and let us know your panties are all in a twist because you didn't like or agree w/my reply. If you ever calm down and decide you're interested in actual discussion, let me know. Back to time out with you now.
 
Cylinder said:
That's ridiculous - the "liquid explosive" precaution was taken from very specific and credible intelligence of an actual plot. If you're not willing to react to something like that, then WTF are we screening airline passengers at all.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The plot existed, and was taken seriously. However, it was not actually credible, because the liquid explosive would not have been effective, except under a very limited and highly unlikely set of circumstances. The explosive was supposedly Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP); and it would have had to have been mixed on board the plane, a long, slow, difficult process with a strong and distinctive smell. Not to mention the risk of being overcome by fumes in the enclosed space of an airplane toilet. Mixing it beforehand and carrying it on board in liquid form would have been impossible, since it's highly senstitive to shock and friction; and would have been rather obvious. It's also fairly low-powered, and a substantial amount is necessary to cause damage to something like an aircraft. They might have blown out a few windows and causes some nosebleeds, but not much else.

Richard Reid's shoe bombs, which contained TATP, would have been ineffective in causing real damage had he managed to set them off (at worst it would have caused injuries to himself and those sitting near him); and it's only pure luck he didn't set it off on his way onto the plane (assuming he made it right and it worked at all).

Incidentally, TATP is what powers automobile airbags.

An article which delineates the true difficulty of using the stuff: Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom