Guest American Woman Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 Come on Mike, shake your head a bit. This is a wheelchair bound woman with cancer who wears a diaper. I am sure she is a terrorist threat. That's just wrong and degrading. And you don't think a terrorist could pose as an elderly woman, claim to have cancer, and put on a diaper? Quote
GostHacked Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Posted June 27, 2011 And you don't think a terrorist could pose as an elderly woman, claim to have cancer, and put on a diaper? If it looks like a 95 year old woman in a wheelchair, chances are it IS a 95 year old lady in a wheelchair. Meanwhile. http://gizmodo.com/5714865/the-tsa-let-a-loaded-gun-get-on-an-airplane A man accidentally brought his loaded .40 caliber gun onto an airplane. He didn't know he had it. Neither did the TSA, who completely missed it during its scan and allowed that plane to fly. Apparently, this happens a lot. And http://gizmodo.com/5768502/undercover-tsa-agent-sneaks-gun-through-airports-full+body-scanners-five-times We put up with the TSA's potentially harmful scanners and overzealous gropings because they make our air travel safe, right? Right! Oh wait, maybe not. According to a high-ranking source inside the TSA, an undercover agent was able to pass through five full-body scanners at the Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport last weekend with a gun stuffed in her underwear. None of the security personnel lifted a finger. And a reply from the TSA about their training. Our security officers are one of the most heavily tested federal workforces in the nation. We regularly test our officers in a variety of ways to ensure the effectiveness of our technology, security measures and the overall layered system. For security reasons, we do not publicize or comment on the results of covert tests, however advanced imaging technology is an effective tool to detect both metallic and nonmetallic items hidden on passengers. Grannys in wheelchairs bad, loaded guns are ok. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Michael Hardner Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 Grannys in wheelchairs bad, loaded guns are ok. That's just silly and you know it. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest American Woman Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) If it looks like a 95 year old woman in a wheelchair, chances are it IS a 95 year old lady in a wheelchair. So now we should just base security issues on what things look like? And if it "looks like" a 21 year old (19 in Canada), we should just sell them booze. Although that's not an acceptable defense in a statutory rape cases - 'but she looked 18.' But for the record, at what age do we allow adults in diapers to whiz through security? - What's the cut off point in your mind? Because I'm thinking that might be a good way to smuggle drugs as well. 'It's just a bulky adult diaper, ma'am/sir. Just wave me on through and I'll be on my way.' And just out of curiosity, how old is too old to be a suicide bomber? At what age does one cease to be capable of being a threat? Edited June 27, 2011 by American Woman Quote
GostHacked Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Posted June 27, 2011 That's just silly and you know it. It's not far from the truth though. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
GostHacked Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Posted June 27, 2011 So now we should just base security issues on what things look like? So if it looks like a 21 year old (19 in Canada), we should just sell them booze. But for the record, at what age do we allow adults in diapers to whiz through security? - What's the cut off point in your mind? Because I'm thinking that might be a good way to smuggle drugs as well. 'It's just a bulky adult diaper, ma'am/sir. Just wave me on through and I'll be on my way.' And just out of curiosity, how old is too old to be a suicide bomber? At what age does one cease to be capable of being a threat? It's not about catching terrorists anymore. It's about how much of this security will you accept before you decide that it really is invasive and does not protect you against any form of real terrorism. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Michael Hardner Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 It's not far from the truth though. Some things will get through, and not every system is 100%. You're implying that the system needs to change because a single mistake happened, but the change you're proposing will result in fewer searches. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Posted June 27, 2011 Some things will get through, and not every system is 100%. You're implying that the system needs to change because a single mistake happened, but the change you're proposing will result in fewer searches. So what if a bomb managed to sneak though? Since guns are missed, I am sure other items of interest would have been missed as well. But if you feel that focusing on Granny in a wheelchair is effective, you are going to miss the real terrorist. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Guest American Woman Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 It's not about catching terrorists anymore. It's about how much of this security will you accept before you decide that it really is invasive and does not protect you against any form of real terrorism. This post is your opinion and only your opinion. Others will say it is about catching terrorists. Others will say it really isn't invasive. And others will say that it does protect us against "real terrorism." (As opposed to fake terrorism? ) Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 Meanwhile, back in Iraq.... BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A suicide bomber in a wheelchair blew himself up at the entrance to a police station north of the capital Baghdad on Sunday, killing three people and wounding 18, officials said. Two police officers were killed and 10 injured in Tarmiyah, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Baghdad, two police officers and one medical official said. The head of the Tarmiyah city council, Qassim Khalifa, told The Associated Press that it was not clear whether the bomber was really handicapped or using the wheelchair as a way to deflect attention from security personnel. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=8215330 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 So what if a bomb managed to sneak though? Since guns are missed, I am sure other items of interest would have been missed as well. But if you feel that focusing on Granny in a wheelchair is effective, you are going to miss the real terrorist. It's either a random check, or following procedure, I'm pretty sure. I highly doubt that someone got an idea to single out or focus on somebody. The sensationalist press regarding this issue seems to be trolling for outrage only. If they want to, they can just go to an airport and follow the most innocuous person until they have to go through the procedure and then report on THAT once again. Why is it news ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) This post is your opinion and only your opinion. Others will say it is about catching terrorists. Others will say it really isn't invasive. And others will say that it does protect us against "real terrorism." (As opposed to fake terrorism? ) You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than getting killed by a terrorist. Better focus would be on the 'what does' and not the 'what if'. Remember, VIPR teams are already at bus terminals, and soon to be on public transportation ...... Where does it stop? http://www.koat.com/news/27984342/detail.html Now, the point in this next story is not that the TSA were present (they were NOT present at this prom) but .... SANTE FE, N.M. -- There were no TSA agents patting down students at the Santa Fe High School prom on Saturday night, despite a federal judge's ruling that there had to be.This is after two sisters from another Santa Fe district high school said they were groped at a recent dance. A federal judge ruled on Friday that TSA certified personnel must now supervise district pat downs, like those at dances or graduations. "With it being late Friday afternoon, there just wasn't time to achieve that," Santa Fe superintendent Bobbie Gutierrez said. Gutierrez said instead of TSA agents, the court is allowing Santa Fe High School to use state police for the prom. Again, how much security are you willing to put up with before it cramps your style? Edited June 27, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 It's either a random check, or following procedure, I'm pretty sure. I highly doubt that someone got an idea to single out or focus on somebody.... Agreed...what these Alex Jones wannabe types can't seem to understand is that the only way a court will find such searches to be lawful is if they are random or based on probable cause. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Agreed...what these Alex Jones wannabe types can't seem to understand is that the only way a court will find such searches to be lawful is if they are random or based on probable cause. Sure bang on Jones and not CNN or FOX or any other network that has actually reported on it as well. Edited June 27, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Guest American Woman Posted June 27, 2011 Report Posted June 27, 2011 You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than getting killed by a terrorist. I'm sure that's a great comfort to the families who have lost loved ones to terrorism. Better focus would be on the 'what does' and not the 'what if'. Huh?? Remember, VIPR teams are already at bus terminals, and soon to be on public transportation ...... Where does it stop? And considering that they've been terrorist targets in the past, why shouldn't they be? What's the big deal? I had to go through security to enter the Eiffel Tower, and this was almost ten years ago - after 9-11 but prior to the war in Iraq. Security has been around for awhile. Now, the point in this next story is not that the TSA were present (they were NOT present at this prom) but .... You're misrepresenting the situation. There was already security at dances at this school, and the contract security it used was being sued over how it screened two female students, so the judge, in initially ordering TSA to be present, was doing so as a protective measure regarding the searches that were already being carried out. The ruling didn't stand, of course, because providing security at schools isn't allowed under the duties of the TSA. So this wasn't a matter of an increase in security by the judge's order, just a different source for the security already in place. Again, how much security are you willing to put up with before it cramps your style? I would imagine security "cramping students' style" would have resulted in some of the victims of school shootings still being alive. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't, because some are critical of the lax security at schools/school functions. At any rate, there's no danger of the TSA patting down students at school/school functions. Now how about answering the questions I posed to you?... at what age do we allow adults in diapers to whiz through security? - What's the cut off point in your mind? Because I'm thinking that might be a good way to smuggle drugs as well. 'It's just a bulky adult diaper, ma'am/sir. Just wave me on through and I'll be on my way.' And just out of curiosity, how old is too old to be a suicide bomber? At what age does one cease to be capable of being a threat? If there were no pat downs at airports, I'm sure drug smugglers would rejoice. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Posted June 30, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/30/investigation-launched-after-nigerian-man-boards-us-plane-without-valid-id/ A Nigerian national boarded a Virgin America flight from New York to Los Angeles last week without a passport and with an expired boarding pass that did not belong to him, Fox News confirms.Authorities are looking into how Olajide Noibi boarded Virgin America Flight 415 at John F. Kennedy International Airport on June 24 without a valid passport or identification. It wasn't until the plane was airborne that flight crew realized an extra passenger was on the flight, according to an FBI affidavit obtained by Fox News. Noibi reportedly got off the plane in Los Angeles International Airport without incident and spent the next several days in the Los Angeles area. It remains unclear how Noibi was able to deplane in Los Angeles without being taken into custody. Noibi was arrested Wednesday morning after he tried to board a Delta Flight 46 from Los Angeles to Atlanta while again using an expired boarding pass. Authorities searched his bag at Los Angeles International Airport and found "10 boarding passes in various individual's names," according to the affidavit. The pat downs and body scanners would not have helped in this case. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
dre Posted June 30, 2011 Report Posted June 30, 2011 I suspect that they already did a cost benefit analysis on this. I'm not sure, but I have no problem giving up the right to get on an airplane without being searched. How about a bus? Or a cab? IMO air travel is very safe statistically and always has been. Im all for some basic common sense security measures like cockpit doors so that the planes cant be used a missiles. But beyond that I just dont see what all panic is about. We are headed towards touch economic times, and we should be making it EASIER and CHEAPER for people to move around, not harder and more expensive. Probably only a small handfull of people would have died on 911 if we had cockpit doors. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Oleg Bach Posted June 30, 2011 Report Posted June 30, 2011 Yes I do listen to Jones. I do like what he has to say. He was one of the people to bring this whole TSA thing to light before the MSM got on board with it. There is enough video evidence out there that shows the TSA doing invasive pat downs to children, and old men in wheelchairs (cause I am sure a 6 year old is a terrorist threat) There is evidence these TSA guys are stealing from passengers. There is video evidence of TSA people taking down people at the airports. Do a simple youtube search and check it out for yourself. Don't take my word for it, and don't take Jones' word for it either. He will tell you the same thing. Go find the evidence yourself, it is there. I've believed 9/11 was an inside job long before I heard about Jones and started listening to his show. But that is another topic debated at length here already, so I am not going to get into it. If Jones is completely wrong about it, why would states even need to introduce legislation in order to bar the TSA from violating part of the constitution? It was NOT an inside job..It was facilitated though. It would be like this - you want to wage war with a guy for political - theorlogical and finacial reasons - You want to get the guy...but you do not know how - so you piss him off - You know that he has a temper - You know that he will punch you in the face _ YOU know you can block the punch if you want _ BUT you allow the man to stike you...then you call the cops - he is charged and convicted...You run with the political advantage called sympathy and you come out on top - that my friends is 9 11 - they knew they were comning - they knew who financed it - and they allowed 3000 people to die just so they could gain more power over the people they already abuse. Hence the begining of the terror industry. Quote
bud Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 You could make that argument about all kinds of measures though, and justify virtually anything in the name of "safety". I fly about 20 times a year, and Id take a wild guess that I have about a 1 in 500000 chance of dying in a terrorist aircraft attack. Im just fine with that... now you could implement all kinds of security measures that might get those odds down to 1 in 600000... but I just dont think its worth spending money on. Flying has always been and still is extremely safe statistically, that it just seems like an odd thing to allocate resources to considering theres so many other more dangerous activities. That doesnt mean that you dont do the easy common sense stuff though... for example cockpit doors are cheap. We should put our risk management dollars where the risk is. if a criminal wanted to kill a large number of people, it would be a lot easier for him to do it in a number of other places rather than the airport where the security is either a lot lower or non-existent. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Guest American Woman Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 the only terrorist here is the USA.,, Usually I ignore you, but in light of the upcoming holiday, I want to extend my wishes for a great Fourth of July weekend. Enjoy! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.