Why Not Use TSA Pat-Down Procedures for Stupid Drivers (There's MoreAutomobile Crashes)?

On 26/11/2010 7:58 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:33:40PM +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/11/2010 5:22 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

And if we weren't making it harder, wouldn't the terrorists have
knocked down a few more skyscrapers by now?

No. That was already impossible for them on the 12th September 2001.
Any terrorist who'd tried it would have been seriously beaten, and
quite likely killed. The security measures introduced after those
events were a waste of effort.

What the more recent security measures are about is preventing
terrorists from destroying aircraft in flight.

Sylvia.


Bull****.

When people say that, with no follow up, it immediately makes me think
that they have some sort of gut feeling that I'm wrong, but cannot
support their position with reasoned argument. They hope, rather
naively, that the person they're replying to will be so intimidated that
they'll back down without further comment.

Well, it doesn't work. If you think I'm wrong, explain your reasoning,
because otherwise I'll persist with my view that you're just an arrogant
little know-it-all with plenty of male hormone, but not much else.

There - I hope I've made my position clear. Unlike you.

Sylvia.

On Nov 24, 10:24*am, Alf Alienated wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:14*am, American wrote:

Is it because airplane passenger surveillance becomes easier at
airports, and one's chances of being involved in an aircraft accident
are about 1 in 11 million? On the other hand, one's chances of being
killed in an automobile accident are 1 in 5000.

Thus it would seem that "Pat-Downs" are on the side of job convenience
more than job performance, and they are also unneccessary when it
comes to anything but intercontinental flights.

American

"They are living proof that empty heads and stuffed shirts go together"

I feel safer since I heard wé will soon need a patdown just to board a
car

what about buses.
i'm quite willing to do like children in poor countries and
hang onto the outside trim or whatever.
to avoid the kinks.

On Nov 24, 11:06*am, American wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:24*am, Alf Alienated wrote:





On Nov 24, 11:14*am, American wrote:

Is it because airplane passenger surveillance becomes easier at
airports, and one's chances of being involved in an aircraft accident
are about 1 in 11 million? On the other hand, one's chances of being
killed in an automobile accident are 1 in 5000.

Thus it would seem that "Pat-Downs" are on the side of job convenience
more than job performance, and they are also unneccessary when it
comes to anything but intercontinental flights.

American

"They are living proof that empty heads and stuffed shirts go together"

I feel safer since I heard wé will soon need a patdown just to board a
car

My whole point was, that it is the "crash" potential that should
justify the pat-down, not just an "arbitrary pat-down", in order to
convey the false perception that one is more safe when entering an
airplane, or even an automobile, for that matter.

American

"Their business is what's none of their business"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

why can't passengers be organised like juries and
be responsible for patting themselves/each other down?
second opinions would be a snap.
you could have little pin-on cards like the ones
you get at conventions with your name and other relevant info.
maybe have a few drinks after the metal detector and the x-ray machine
to get warmed up.
and if you get blown up anyway, at least you'll die with ppl you know.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 01:01:36PM +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/11/2010 7:58 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:33:40PM +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/11/2010 5:22 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

And if we weren't making it harder, wouldn't the terrorists have
knocked down a few more skyscrapers by now?

No. That was already impossible for them on the 12th September 2001.
Any terrorist who'd tried it would have been seriously beaten, and
quite likely killed. The security measures introduced after those
events were a waste of effort.

What the more recent security measures are about is preventing
terrorists from destroying aircraft in flight.

Sylvia.


Bull****.

When people say that, with no follow up, it immediately makes me think
that they have some sort of gut feeling that I'm wrong, but cannot
support their position with reasoned argument. They hope, rather
naively, that the person they're replying to will be so intimidated that
they'll back down without further comment.

Well, it doesn't work. If you think I'm wrong, explain your reasoning,
because otherwise I'll persist with my view that you're just an arrogant
little know-it-all with plenty of male hormone, but not much else.

There - I hope I've made my position clear. Unlike you.

You labour under the delusion that security screening of passengers by
unskilled amateurs can do more than just annoy people. Amateur
terrorists might get caught by amateur TSA flunkies, but professionals
probably find it trivial to pass security checkpoints with whatever
they feel like carrying. Your problem really is that your nation
cannot produce enough professional security personnel to manage the
threat of terrorism. Liberalism strikes again.

It's sad the US should devolve to a nation largely composed of
pro-sports zealots, shakedown artists, as well as no small number of
brainlesss flag-wavers, but there you have it. Fait accompli. You
can't hire competence if there isn't any to be had.

Too bad, so sad. Next chapter.



Robert Collins

It's hard for me to even tell what he disagreed with in your post.

Yes, one could indeed say that taking control of the plane would have
been far more difficult from September 15th, 2001 onwards, once air
travel resumed in the United States. So the other attacks on planes
have been aimed at just blowing them up, and killing dozens of people
instead of thousands. (Although the pieces of the plane could fall on
people on the ground if the plane is blown up, or at least
depressurized, at the right moment.)

I suppose, although I can only guess, that he wanted to take a
position more strongly opposed to mine than yours was. Presumably, he
takes the view that TSA procedures are pure security theater, not
intended to prevent anything, but merely to sow panic among the
sheeple so that terrorism can be used as an excuse to take more of our
liberties away.

Trouble is, after al-Qaeda showed how it was done, men suicidal
because their girlfriends walked out on them might decide to go out
with a big bang, and attempt major terrorist acts. So-called "security
theater" isn't as useless as some people think.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
| It's hard for me to even tell

Of course. Everything is hard for you to tell, you are stupid.