What would you accept for safer flying?

[Charade]

The best way to keep our skies safe is good intelligence, not harrassment of the flying public. Piss off enough people with knee-jerk reactions and ridiculous rules and the TSA won't need to worry about hiring enough people. There won't be anyone flying and half the airlines will shut down, and with that will come layoffs, both in the travel industry but also in the TSA.

Anne

Harrassment?!?!?!

Or, they will compenstate this "knee-jerk" reaction with a compromised plan that works better in the long run. And people will adjust to it just like they've done already.

You seem to be dismissing that fact that part of that flying public are people who wish to cause harm. So should we do away with ALL "harrassments" of the flying public? Or just the ones you don't like or think will work?

Let me jump right out and make a politically incorrect statement.

PROFILE!!

If the police get a report of a white man with orange hair, an eye patch and a scar on his face (anyone see Johnny English?) is a "person of interest" to the authorities, they shouldn't be shaking down black grannies and little kids in an attempt to be PC. If you want to call something BS Anne, that's the REAL BS.

If there are reports of someone trying to sneek explosive compents on to an airplane, along with potential trigger devices, shouldn't we prohibit those items until they can find a better way to screen for them?

To make this less harrassing for the bulk of the traveling public, just force people of middle eastern decent to trash their liquid goods and electronic devices.

Or better yet, just keep them off the planes altogether.

 

[Charade]

Amen!

All these new "security" measures are doing is making some people "FEEL" safer. We're no safer today when we fly than we were 2 days ago.

As long as terrorists voluntarily toss their bombs in the garbage next to my lipstick, we'll be just fine.

You gotta be kidding me!

So instead of complaining about the security measures that are total BS and only make us "FEEL" safer, what do you suggest?

And your party now claims they are the ones who are going to be "tough on terrorism"?

Not with that attitude.

 

[peachgirl]

You gotta be kidding me!

So instead of complaining about the security measures that are total BS and only make us "FEEL" safer, what do you suggest?

And your party now claims they are the ones who are going to be "tough on terrorism"?

Not with that attitude.

Making me toss my lipstick is being tough on terrorism?

Read a few of ducklite's posts...she's right on target as to the steps we ought to be taking. Making moms drink breast milk isn't going to make you safe, trust me.

 

[Charade]

Honey, if you think that liquids in carry on's are the only thing that can bring down a plane...

This is as usual, a knee jerk reaction. It would be just as easy to have those same liquids in a checked bag and use a dotonation device that's carried on.
Anne

No, it wouldn't. Because for it to be explosive, the components would already have to be assembled. If it were that easy, why haven't planes been falling out of the sky already?

They knew it would be harder to get a "ready made" explosive device onto an airplane via checked baggage so they came up with this plan.

 

[Maleficent13]

Can I interrupt the argument for a second to ask a question? I asked this on another thread but I'm still wondering:

All news reports I've listened to indicate that British intelligence had been investigating these people for upwards of a year...this was not new intelligence but an ongoing investigation and due to their investigation they thought that yesterday was the opportune time to move in.

So...if we've known about it for a year, why were we not on hightened security for a year. Even though the PUBLIC just found out about it yesterday, the PTB have known about it for a long while...so I am not understanding this SUDDEN reaction at the airports.

Can anyone help me out with this?

 

[Charade]

Making me toss my lipstick is being tough on terrorism?

Read a few of ducklite's posts...she's right on target as to the steps we ought to be taking. Making moms drink breast milk isn't going to make you safe, trust me.

I've read them and I agree with some of them. Counter intelligence is crucial but that won't catch everyone.

Do you even understand how small of an explosive device it would take to bring down an airplane? They don't have to blow it to smithereens, just punch a hole in it at 40,000 feet and down she comes all with you, your lipstick, that mother with her breast milk and her baby in a fireball when it hits the ground.

So lets say you have 4 people that each bring on individual components to make a bomb. They would use something as unsuspecting as a lipstick case or a bottle of breast milk. They'd get on the plane and then build their bomb. Or even hide the parts for someone on the next flight.

all you want. It ain't that funny.

Would you be laughing if you were on the plane with Richard Reid trying to set off his shoe bomb?

Gee, who'd a thunk of putting explosives in a SHOE!

 

[Charade]

Can I interrupt the argument for a second to ask a question? I asked this on another thread but I'm still wondering:

All news reports I've listened to indicate that British intelligence had been investigating these people for upwards of a year...this was not new intelligence but an ongoing investigation and due to their investigation they thought that yesterday was the opportune time to move in.

So...if we've known about it for a year, why were we not on heightened security for a year. Even though the PUBLIC just found out about it yesterday, the PTB have known about it for a long while...so I am not understanding this SUDDEN reaction at the airports.

Can anyone help me out with this?

That's a good question. Did they know for a year the method they were going to use or just that plan was in the works? From what I heard they had someone on the inside. How "inside" wasn't reveled so maybe the inside man didn't know until recently the full details of the plan. That's how they operate. Keeping their players in the dark until the last moment.

 

[NewJersey]

Heck, they can take all they want to make the flight safer. Charade brought up some excellent points.

I'm not bringing anything on board with me when I fly a week from Monday. Rather be safe than sorry and have to waste time fixing everything to be checked at the airport.

 

[peachgirl]

Yes, and AFTER he used his shoe, we started making people take off their shoes.

AFTER the British discovered they were using liquids and gels to hide components we start banning liquids and gels..

Are you seeing a pattern here?

As someone else said, using this method will have us flying naked soon. Stop them before they reach the gates or it's just window dressing.

You know as well as I do these measures aren't going to stay in effect for long. If banning these items is really effective, why isn't it permanent? This all for appearances and anyone who thinks it actually makes us safer is just fooling themselves.

 

[jen_uk]

Completely agree with Charade

 

[poohandwendy]

I am still reeling that I can't carry a boxcutter in my carry-on. I refuse to check my boxcutter because it could be stolen and what will I do then? Boxcutters are not weapons. And neither are liquids.

 

[Charade]

Yes, and AFTER he used his shoe, we started making people take off their shoes.

AFTER the British discovered they were using liquids and gels to hide components we start banning liquids and gels..

Are you seeing a pattern here?

So, you would have preferred them to have us take our shoes off and toss our liquids BEFORE there was a threat? Make up your mind wouldya.

As someone else said, using this method will have us flying naked soon. Stop them before they reach the gates or it's just window dressing.

Do you look good nekked?

I totally disagree that it's window dressing. If that's the case, most deterrents could be considered "window dressing".

You know as well as I do these measures aren't going to stay in effect for long. If banning these items is really effective, why isn't it permanent? This all for appearances and anyone who thinks it actually makes us safer is just fooling themselves.

So, why do evacuated people return to their homes after a hurricane warning? It's entirely possible that another one will hit someday in the future. Why not just stay away?

It's not permanent because that specific type of threat isn't consistent. The threat is NOW. It may not be in 3 months.

You react (or overreact in some peoples minds) for the moment and plan for the future.

 

[Charade]

Boxcutters are not weapons.

But Ducklite is!!

And neither are liquids.

Au contraire. Just wait until mom peels back that diaper with juniors runny poop in it. WHOA!!

 

[ducklite]

Let me jump right out and make a politically incorrect statement.

PROFILE!!

If the police get a report of a white man with orange hair, an eye patch and a scar on his face (anyone see Johnny English?) is a "person of interest" to the authorities, they shouldn't be shaking down black grannies and little kids in an attempt to be PC. If you want to call something BS Anne, that's the REAL BS.

You'll get no arguement from me on that one. None at all. I'm all for "profiling" in this case. To select a two year old for random secondary screening is absurd, when there's Abdul and his wife Burka giving flight attendents problems over not chaniging thier seats to comply with FAA regulations. And if anyone is offended by this, go find my post about this exact situation--pre-September 11.

If there are reports of someone trying to sneek explosive compents on to an airplane, along with potential trigger devices, shouldn't we prohibit those items until they can find a better way to screen for them?

No, and let me explain why. At this point the terrorists are on alert, and they aren't going to use liquids. They've already moved on to "plan B." Like someone else said, you catch a mouse by building a better mousetrap.

To make this less harrassing for the bulk of the traveling public, just force people of middle eastern decent to trash their liquid goods and electronic devices.

Or better yet, just keep them off the planes altogether.

I would like to see more screening based on profiles. If you don't like it, either don't fly, or get a "Trusted Traveler" status. If you can't get a "trusted traveler" card, guess what...there's a reason for it. Where's there's smoke there's fire.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

Can I interrupt the argument for a second to ask a question? I asked this on another thread but I'm still wondering:

All news reports I've listened to indicate that British intelligence had been investigating these people for upwards of a year...this was not new intelligence but an ongoing investigation and due to their investigation they thought that yesterday was the opportune time to move in.

So...if we've known about it for a year, why were we not on hightened security for a year. Even though the PUBLIC just found out about it yesterday, the PTB have known about it for a long while...so I am not understanding this SUDDEN reaction at the airports.

Can anyone help me out with this?

Sure. It has to do with the concept of logic and common sense, something that I'm quickly learning that a lot of our so called "security experts" don't possess.

Anne

 

[mmausse]

Finger print EVERYONE, every time they fly, and have an international database. However, in light of what happened with cell phone usage on the fateful PA flight on 9/11, I would still like to be able to bring my cell phone onboard with me just in case I need to say goodbye to my family.

 

[ducklite]

Would you be laughing if you were on the plane with Richard Reid trying to set off his shoe bomb?

Gee, who'd a thunk of putting explosives in a SHOE!

Frankly I'm not at all afraid of the occasional whack job like him. What puzzles me is that more passengers didn't immediately come to the aid of the FA. I have spoken up before (physical action wasn't needed but I wouildn't be afraid to take it either) in a FA's defense with a person who in this day and age would most certainly be seen as a potential terrorist--a male of Arabic descent who refused a FA's request to change seats because he was "illegally" seated in an exit row.

Had I been on a flight with that nut job, the second he bit the FA I would have smashed his brains in with my laptop. Truly, there would have been nothing left of his cranium.

There are PLENTY of defensive weapons on a plane. You just need to think about various scenarios and what you could do to stop them.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

Finger print EVERYONE, every time they fly, and have an international database. However, in light of what happened with cell phone usage on the fateful PA flight on 9/11, I would still like to be able to bring my cell phone onboard with me just in case I need to say goodbye to my family.

I have no problem with this. In fact I voluntarily submitted my fingerprints, retina scan, background info and passport info to the federal government in order to be cleared as a "trusted traveler." If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be afraid of doing so. If you've got something to hide, then you shouldn't be on a plane. It's not rocket science.

Anne

 

[Maleficent13]

Never mind; I realized my followup was only the same question, reworded, because I still don't get it.

 

[cardaway]

It's all window dressing IMO. A group of smart people could spend a couple hours talking and come up with many new ways to hijack or take down a plane. In fact that's one of the things you could do, just get a good sized group of people all to board the same plane.

Even having everybody board naked isn't going to do the trick. It's always been risky to get from here to there no matter what mode of transportation you take. Personally I've always been much more worried about people taking out buildings and facilities.