What do you think about the full body scan (being) introduced at airports?
Improved security or needless invasion of privacy?
Next time, a terrorists swallows a bomb or hides one in the anus they'll try to enforce a 100% check on everyone.
I am fine with a full body scan, but where is this "improved security" going to end? Flight is important to us, and taking it away now is like telling everyone that their cars can no longer be used; You can expect a riot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-30 10:30
>Invasion of privacy
People act like they have a right to fly on a plane. No one forces anybody to fly on a civilian passenger airplane. If you don't the security involved, take a boat or drive a car.
I mean I rather end up alive then be scared of exposing my dick piercing or whatever.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-30 10:39
They have those at amsterdam. I really dont care too much, but i think everyone's over reacting about this guy who just managed to burn himself and scare a bunch of people. how many years after richard reed (who didn't manage to do any damage by the way either) and I still have to take my fucking shoes off? get the fuck over it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-30 10:47
Terrorists detonates in the full body scan line. Terrorist detonates in the pre-full body scan security check line. Terrorist detonates in the lobby. Terrorist detonates in the lobby entrance security line. Terrorist detonates in the pub.
Security checks to fly only work to stop hijacking. If the goal is simple to disrupt air travel or kill people you CAN NOT PREVENT IT.
Any one who thinks this is a good idea is a retarded sheeple who believers the politicians and media fear campaign.
We are luck that AQ are a bunch of cowards. They obviously can't find enough intelligent hardcore supporters to pull of the kinds of attacks that the IRA did in the 70's and 80's.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-30 11:00
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
That is my only thought on this.
At a certain point, too much is too much.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-30 12:21
As long as it doesn't give me massive radiation poisoning, I'm fine. I have nothing to hide.
>>10
Without cops there are now millions of savage nigger apes with ak47s and machetes roaming the countryside taking revenge on whitey for 500 years of slavery and oppression, you might kill a few but you'll never kill them all, during a firefight you are knocked out cold in the chaos, when you wake up your weapon is missing and your leg is injured. You could have spent 1% of your income on tax for a police force and judicial system and lived a peaceful middle class small town America lifestyle but you obviously prefer bending over and accepting a cock balls deep.
>>14
Niggers are only 10% of the population, and shrinking. They are already roaming the cities with AK47s and machetes seeking revenge on Whitey, and, as we saw in the 1992 Los Angeles riots, despite the crushing tax burden we pay as working-class White men, the cops are mainly too chickenshit to intervene.
Fortunately, the nigger's average IQ is around 55 and they kill each other far more often than they kill actual humans. Also, Mexicans, East Asians, and South Asians are not blinded by the self-hatred-White-guilt propaganda of the Electric Jew in your living room, and fervently desire the extermination of the niggers, compared to White Nationalists who would be content to be left alone.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-02 19:05
>>14
You seem to forget that the individual states and not just the federal government provide police services as well. Police forces have even said it themselves that you are responsible for your own safety until they arrive. If you have a weapon on hand you can defend yourself and maybe even contain the criminal until they police arrive.
Don't be a tool and just rely on the police to help you out of a jam.
>fortunately, the nigger's average IQ is around 55
not true. I believe the latest figures say the average african americans' IQ is somewhere around the 80 mark. No wonder you're racist though, if you believe that kind of thing
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-03 20:03
the onl y people against this are christians who are ashamed of their body, fat people who are ashamed of their body, and people who are ashamed of their body (fat people)
tiny dicked fucks
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-04 4:23
>>19
Still 5 IQ points below the standard deviation. Meaning half of all niggers are as dumb or dumber than the bottom 1/6th of whites while the bottom 1/6 of niggers can hardly be considered conscious sentient beings and are fit only as beasts of burden.
I dont think this will solve anything as >>4 suggests. Terrorists will just think of new ways to beat the technology. It is futile to try and treat the symptons of terrorism rather than the cause.
>>24
It's people like you who never protest about anything. It's people like you who go along with whatever the government say. It's people like you who let the nazis into power.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-05 10:37
>>25
Not just people like him. There are many like him. The weak, the cowardly; does the inaction of the disinterested really warrant such blame in the crimes of the ambitious? People rise to protect these, or to exploit them.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 10:17
>>26
I agree, though I gave him a flippant response to a flippant remark.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 14:29
This has nothing to do with infringing on your liberties like some others have posted, it has to do with privacy. And if you don't like the machines, than in America you have the liberty not to get on a fucking plane. Personnaly I think these machines are great but my only concern would be the amount of radiation the emit, but seeing as I don't fly very frequently I don't think it would be a big concern for me.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 14:56
>>28
I'm curious so answer me this. If the terrorists found a way to exploit the scanners and the officials said the only way to maintain security was to do strip searches on everybody would you mind?
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 15:07
Why bother asking him? Of course he's going to agree to that. The state is an infallible establishment that is perfect in each and every single way in the eyes of those like him. They only complain when a Republican president is at the helm. In reality both parties are the same.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 15:37
>>29
That outcome is highly improbable, but I don't see a problem with strip searches. If you don't like it get a bus, take a train or any of the other forms of transportaion available.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 15:52
>>31
But why should the majority risk their rights and humility because the actions of a few nutjobs? there's other forms of transportaion available
They are ruining over way of life. Imagine if they moved on to these others and began bombing them too. This sort of legislation is eroding our rights and feedoms.
>>32
What rights? Where does it say you have the right to humility or even privacy? How is geting a body scan infringing on your rights? You sound like chicken little and a body scan is the impending sign of losing your constitution. And if you don't like how terrorism is affecting the airline industry write to your elected representative and tell them you would like stricter requirements on people flying into America and not such a burden on the American people themselves, after all it's their fault for not preventing these sort of things from happening. You complain about terrorism but then cry when your government enacts a plan to prevent it from happening.
But that's just it; it won't prevent anything. The terrorists will just circumvent these measures. It's pointless trying to treat the symptoms of terrorism rather than tackling the route cause.
Anyway, I think racial profiling passengers and only scanning them would be more effective.
There was also a leaked document from an airport stating that in busy periods it is necessary to lax security checks as the planes wouldnt run on time - so you aren't protected anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 16:29
>>34 after all it's their fault for not preventing these sort of things from happening.
They (the government) actually radicalized these terrorists over the years with foreign intervention into affairs that they shouldn't have been in the first place; killing many innocent civilians in the meanwhile.
The only way to prevent this from happening even more is much less (if not total) withdraw from that whole region. Then we wouldn't need to be stripped searched because some random nutcase decided to blow up a plane that day. Of course withdraw won't happen anytime soon as there's lots of corporatist money to be made off of this terrorist scam for a few already wealthy elite.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 18:46
>>35 >>36
Quit blaming the gov't, it's radical Islam's fault not Americas. Racial profiling will work in most cases but religion has no race in the case of Islam, for example the Caucasian American that fought for the insurgency in Iraq. And there are no know ways to circumvent the scanner YET so that bridge will have to be crossed when we get to it, but there will never be a fool proof way of protecting everyone. The corporate interest in these regions is your fault aswell because these companies have to listen to people bitch everytime their gas prices go up a cent, so I wouldn't talk to bad about them when you're the one proping them up.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 18:49
>>37
Sorry for the jambled post, I didn't feel like replying to each of you in seperate posts.
>>36
As for the lax security, if people quit compliang about flight delays that wouldn't happen. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 19:23
>>37 Quit blaming the gov't
I'm sorry, but if we're going to try to find the reason behind why they attack us, we have to look at our own foreign policy. If they attacked us on the reasoning that because we're free and prosperous, and because of Islam, then they would have attacked us long before any of our grandparents were even born.
While Bill Clinton and congress were going through the whole Monica Lewinsky debacle, Clinton during his second term were sending forces all around mucking in the middle east, killing at least half a million if not more. Back in around 1998 we were putting sanctions on Iraq (just like we are doing on Iran now), and they never forgot that.
Islamic extremism exists, no doubt about that, but what you don't understand is that when you intervene in foreign affairs like this, you give them the incentive to radicalize.
All this crap about increased airport security is just slashing at the endless branches. If we're going to find a solution to this problem, we have to look first at our interventionist foreign policies and how they contribute to the radicalization of these people who attack us.
it's radical Islam's fault not Americas.
I've never said it was the fault of Americans. Just our corrupt government
but there will never be a fool proof way of protecting everyone.
Exactly, which is why it's flawed to even try to do anything about it in the first place.
The corporate interest in these regions is your fault aswell because these companies have to listen to people bitch everytime their gas prices go up a cent, so I wouldn't talk to bad about them when you're the one proping them up.
I agree. This is the interventionism I wrote above.
>>38 As for the lax security, if people quit compliang[sic] about flight delays that wouldn't happen. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Complete nonsense. It's not just about "delayed flights", it's about the whole idea behind should we give up some of our liberties for some safety? These things are always a precursor for more security involvement.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 20:08
>>39
I don't know how to quote here so this may be messed up.
You want to change foreign policy because in your opinion it contributes to the radicaliztion of Islamists. This in IMO is absurd, they have been attacking western civilation since the dark ages. American foriegn policy should be to the advantage of Americans not to foreign nations, and should not bend over backwards because some ass in a mud hut complains . The root of the problem is Islam itself, and trying to make them happy won't solve a thing.
When I wrote America I was talikng about the poeple and gov't collectivly. In a round-about way though, they should crush Islam aggression completely and not just do a half ass job of it. Terrorist problem solved.
Flawed to do anything in the first place! So you're saying the best security is no security?
More security involvment in the airline industry, not nanny cams in your bathroom. You're confusing liberty with privacy again. Expecting to have privacy in your everyday life is to be expected, but when you engage in things like getting on a crowded plane or drive a car where you can control the safety of others around you your privacy doesn't mean shit to me.
Would you clarify your last comment about this being a precursor? Do you think this is just the gov't getting its foot in the door to control every aspect of you everyday life, or just dislike the gov't starting to take more control of an industry and would like to see airline security privatized?
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 21:59
>>37 >>40
Hah! Here's how to end our troubles with Islam. First, we stop stealing their only resource, oil. We bring everybody home, leave them to their own devices, apologize, then tell them this: We're gonna leave you alone, and we expect you to leave us alone. If any of you come here and kill any of our citizens, or if you kill any of our citizens in any country except your own, then we're gonna kill you. Of course you will probably have died in a suicide attack, so we're gonna kill your family, your pets, and your friends. To a fucking man. When you're ready to talk, you know where we are.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 22:44
>>41
But America needs the oil now, I like my plan of killing them all now and pilaging their stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-09 23:12
Well there is that. But I'm an American, not a Viking. And the bitch is that Europe is a hell of a lot more dependent on Arab oil than we are.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-10 2:02
>>43
I'm not American or European, so the whole dependance on oil bogles me a bit. I've derailed this thread enough already so I'll leave it alone now to get back on topic.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-10 13:00
How stupid one have to be to believe that muslims are terrorists because someone took their oil. What would they do with it by the way? The truth is their religion is from nature expansive and warlike quite like christianity was in past, so they just want everyone to live to their standards. The only way of civilization is secularization. If they can't pool that out then they will be always seen as stupid barbarians and no one will care for them and their economies. Why is it that some noneuropean countries could become civilized and muslim countries and always a mess?
>>42
Of course, because you're a warmonger with investment in this corporatist racket called war. Either that, or you're an idiot, Chinese made flag-waving, Neo-con Republican voter. Or just a troll. I'm guessing it's the latter.
This was brought on by conservative reactionism more than anything else. It's a blatant invasion of privacy that won't actually do what everyone thinks it does and restricts the freedom to travel even more.
Just to clarify; You can no longer travel on a private corporation's transportation across state lines without being forced to strip/be searched, and present identification to federal authorities.
A life without liberty and privacy isn't worth living. Give us a separate line to queue with no scanners!c(also cheaper fares :3)
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-17 15:19
They are yet another intrusion into our privacy in the name of protection, yet we know that they are not fail-safe and could see airport authorities becoming reliant on a deeply flawed method of detection.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-02 12:57
Great for an exhibitionist like me? I'll wear a buttplug.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-02 13:21
>>60
Of course if you do, they'll think it's an explosive, and take you away for more than just an exhibition.
At the very least, you'll miss your flight.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-03 5:20
I don't see why it is a problem that pedo's would look at naked children as long as they spotted if there was a bomb there or not. It's not like pedophiles doesn't already have victims and millions of videos and pictures stashed. If they didn't have them they would not be pedophiles.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-03 5:30
ITT: fags don't want other people to find out how small their penises are.
I really don't care what they do so long as I don't get a hand up my ass
You appear to me to be implying the islamists 'attacking' is completely unjustified and unfair. The crusades come to mind. I hate wheels, having your moment in the sunshine (usa topdog) and then having your moment in the shit (middle east) over and over is not good enough.
Can you say your foreign policy has tried to be accomodating, has tried to find a mutually beneficial deal?
>American foriegn policy should be to the advantage of Americans not to foreign nations, and should not bend over backwards because some ass in a mud hut complains
This boils down to old fashioned looting with your phrasing, and while i cant say im against it if its necessary for survival, its not.
How would you go about crushing islam i wonder mm? more bombs, more invasions, nukes? You willing to turn the entire middle east islam population into corpses unless you break them completely first? Are you mad? Do you really want to use a last resort measure like this?
>Flawed to do anything in the first place! So you're saying the best security is no security?
I dont know what he meant but i saw it as this. since there is no fool-proof way to deal with the terrorist attacks, it would be better to deal with the root problem instead of constantly inventing new ways to deal with side-effects.
>More security involvment in the airline industry, not nanny cams in your bathroom. You're confusing liberty with privacy again. Expecting to have privacy in your everyday life is to be expected, but when you engage in things like getting on a crowded plane or drive a car where you can control the safety of others around you your privacy doesn't mean shit to me.
I can understand this but you wouldn't have to put up with this if you weren't creating the problem in the first place.
im not the person you've been talking to, which you've prob gathered from my comments already.
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-04 20:52
oh lord. i posted post 70 and its turned out a complete mess. bah
Name:
Anonymous2010-02-06 12:14
>>71
Have you considered hanging yourself with your belt?