lol so if the black guys didn't get pissed you'd be happy using those terms instead? omg you're doing a great job of seeming a racist ignorant twat.11 Bravo wrote:
no. you are calling my mom a bitch..thats different. we said haji because they black guys got pissed when we said sand nigga or dune coon.
i used the term jawa most the time tbh.ruisleipa wrote:
lol so if the black guys didn't get pissed you'd be happy using those terms instead? omg you're doing a great job of seeming a racist ignorant twat.11 Bravo wrote:
no. you are calling my mom a bitch..thats different. we said haji because they black guys got pissed when we said sand nigga or dune coon.
Well done.
My mammoth of a dick is not the point, its personal privacy. Hey, you know what; we should also have full body scanners on trains and every other public means of transport. FUk that, let have it in every building since pretty much all of these features are open to attack.Cybargs wrote:
What's wrong with hajji? Better than towel head or terrorist.
I'm sure after seeing through thousands of dicks airport security personnel won't give a fuck about how small your cock is yeh. Full body scanners are win. Unless you like gloves.
JawaCybargs wrote:
What's wrong with hajji? Better than towel head or terrorist.
They're not the only opposition, but they are the most ironic opposition.mafia996630 wrote:
I rather not have some some geezer stare at my bollocks. Its an invasion of privacy, full stop. And I think you islamophobic motherfukers need to take a step back because I'm sure its not just a bunch of mooooooooooooooooooooooolims (< is that what they are calling it now ? its hard to keep up sometimes) that oppose these scanners.
That's the kind of disinterested attitude that lets the TSA get away with anything. "Well, they're keeping us safe, so they can do whatever they want to do".Kmarion wrote:
If anyone wants to peek at my junk to keep me alive, have a ball. Pun intended.
ironic if you think every Muslim is out to kill you.JohnG@lt wrote:
They're not the only opposition, but they are the most ironic opposition.mafia996630 wrote:
I rather not have some some geezer stare at my bollocks. Its an invasion of privacy, full stop. And I think you islamophobic motherfukers need to take a step back because I'm sure its not just a bunch of mooooooooooooooooooooooolims (< is that what they are calling it now ? its hard to keep up sometimes) that oppose these scanners.
Well, if there are better, cheaper ways to get better security, please elaborate.mikkel wrote:
That's the kind of disinterested attitude that lets the TSA get away with anything. "Well, they're keeping us safe, so they can do whatever they want to do".Kmarion wrote:
If anyone wants to peek at my junk to keep me alive, have a ball. Pun intended.
The whole-body imagers are supposed to expedite the screening process and increase security, but do neither successfully. There are better, cheaper and more efficient methods, but the people who swallow the tripe that the TSA publicise are the people who are allowing the government to treat the flying public like Zeks being transported to Gulags, to borrow an apt phrase.
You're eroding the privacy and freedom of everyone through your unquestioning attitude towards an agency that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy.
Not at all. I don't view all Muslims as a threat, but all threats have been from Muslims.mafia996630 wrote:
ironic if you think every Muslim is out to kill you.JohnG@lt wrote:
They're not the only opposition, but they are the most ironic opposition.mafia996630 wrote:
I rather not have some some geezer stare at my bollocks. Its an invasion of privacy, full stop. And I think you islamophobic motherfukers need to take a step back because I'm sure its not just a bunch of mooooooooooooooooooooooolims (< is that what they are calling it now ? its hard to keep up sometimes) that oppose these scanners.
It's pretty well established that dogs are by far better than machines for the purpose of finding explosives. Few of the incidents that the WBIs have been pushed in response to would have been prevented had the scanners been in use, and none of them would have been prevented effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if there are better, cheaper ways to get better security, please elaborate.mikkel wrote:
That's the kind of disinterested attitude that lets the TSA get away with anything. "Well, they're keeping us safe, so they can do whatever they want to do".Kmarion wrote:
If anyone wants to peek at my junk to keep me alive, have a ball. Pun intended.
The whole-body imagers are supposed to expedite the screening process and increase security, but do neither successfully. There are better, cheaper and more efficient methods, but the people who swallow the tripe that the TSA publicise are the people who are allowing the government to treat the flying public like Zeks being transported to Gulags, to borrow an apt phrase.
You're eroding the privacy and freedom of everyone through your unquestioning attitude towards an agency that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy.
So far, these scanners are the best idea I've heard, and most critics of them are short on ideas.
Ok, I'm all for using dogs if that's cheaper and more effective.mikkel wrote:
It's pretty well established that dogs are by far better than machines for the purpose of finding explosives. Few of the incidents that the WBIs have been pushed in response to would have been prevented had the scanners been in use, and none of them would have been prevented effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if there are better, cheaper ways to get better security, please elaborate.mikkel wrote:
That's the kind of disinterested attitude that lets the TSA get away with anything. "Well, they're keeping us safe, so they can do whatever they want to do".
The whole-body imagers are supposed to expedite the screening process and increase security, but do neither successfully. There are better, cheaper and more efficient methods, but the people who swallow the tripe that the TSA publicise are the people who are allowing the government to treat the flying public like Zeks being transported to Gulags, to borrow an apt phrase.
You're eroding the privacy and freedom of everyone through your unquestioning attitude towards an agency that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy.
So far, these scanners are the best idea I've heard, and most critics of them are short on ideas.
The critics aren't short on ideas by any measure.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-13 12:15:52)
No not anything. They aren't shoving their hands up your ass. Paranoia will eat you away. Get a grip son.mikkel wrote:
That's the kind of disinterested attitude that lets the TSA get away with anything. "Well, they're keeping us safe, so they can do whatever they want to do".Kmarion wrote:
If anyone wants to peek at my junk to keep me alive, have a ball. Pun intended.
The whole-body imagers are supposed to expedite the screening process and increase security, but do neither successfully. There are better, cheaper and more efficient methods, but the people who swallow the tripe that the TSA publicise are the people who are allowing the government to treat the flying public like Zeks being transported to Gulags, to borrow an apt phrase.
You're eroding the privacy and freedom of everyone through your unquestioning attitude towards an agency that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy.
Yes, Muslims consider dogs unclean.Turquoise wrote:
Ok, I'm all for using dogs if that's cheaper and more effective.mikkel wrote:
It's pretty well established that dogs are by far better than machines for the purpose of finding explosives. Few of the incidents that the WBIs have been pushed in response to would have been prevented had the scanners been in use, and none of them would have been prevented effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if there are better, cheaper ways to get better security, please elaborate.
So far, these scanners are the best idea I've heard, and most critics of them are short on ideas.
The critics aren't short on ideas by any measure.
Isn't it true though that Muslims consider dogs "unclean"? Wouldn't they be offended by having dogs sniff them and such?
No, it's not that every Muslim is out to kill us.mafia996630 wrote:
ironic if you think every Muslim is out to kill you.
Yeah but not nearly 99% of airline attacks are from Muslims.rdx-fx wrote:
No, it's not that every Muslim is out to kill us.mafia996630 wrote:
ironic if you think every Muslim is out to kill you.
It's that most everyone that is out to kill us is Muslim, at the moment.
Huge difference.
Even if 99.999% of the Muslim population is peaceful, yet 99% of the airline attacks come from Muslims, it's just common sense to give that group a closer eye. Pretending not to is just insanity masquerading as politically correct dogma.
Locharbee... 9/11... the Christmas attempt... three off the top of my head. I can't seem to recall a Christian or a Hindu strapping C4 to their bodies and blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace either.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Yeah but not nearly 99% of airline attacks are from Muslims.rdx-fx wrote:
No, it's not that every Muslim is out to kill us.mafia996630 wrote:
ironic if you think every Muslim is out to kill you.
It's that most everyone that is out to kill us is Muslim, at the moment.
Huge difference.
Even if 99.999% of the Muslim population is peaceful, yet 99% of the airline attacks come from Muslims, it's just common sense to give that group a closer eye. Pretending not to is just insanity masquerading as politically correct dogma.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-13 12:48:28)
No, they should not get a pass on the scanners. If they don't like the security measures they'll just have to make other travel arrangements.rdx-fx wrote:
Since airline travel is a convenience and not a right, and airline safety measures are offensive to your religious preferences..
Take a damn boat instead.
Until Islam goes back to a more moderate interpretation of their Quaran, I'm thinking the simple act of TWI (Travelling While Islamic) should be enough to warrant additional security screening.
If the shoe-bomb fits... or the explosive underwear.. or 9/11 hijacker..
No, being Islamic doesn't get you a pass on the body scanners - it gets you put at the front of the line to go through said body scanner.
Don't like it? Then tell your 'brothers' to stop attacking civilians in their 'holy' war.
Saying "oh, that's horrible" to the cameras, while snickering in your sleeve everytime a westerner dies in a jihadi attack, just isn't enough anymore.
Internment and 'guilty until proven innocent' based only on ethnicity is a touch overboard.Braddock wrote:
No, they should not get a pass on the scanners. If they don't like the security measures they'll just have to make other travel arrangements.
However, racial and religious profiling for security purposes is bang out of order. The British subjected the Irish to internment and a policy of 'guilty until proven innocent' during the troubles and it's a fucking disgusting way for any supposedly civilised nation to behave. It's no different to a suicide bomber regarding all Westerners as 'infidels' who deserve to be attacked. Every individual is unique, you have to apply security measures to everyone evenly.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-02-13 14:20:33)
I can't say that I care terribly much about how they handle the religious sensitivities of certain people. The CBP have had vegetable-sniffing dogs on patrol for years. I'm sure they'd be willing to share any insight they may have.Turquoise wrote:
Ok, I'm all for using dogs if that's cheaper and more effective.mikkel wrote:
It's pretty well established that dogs are by far better than machines for the purpose of finding explosives. Few of the incidents that the WBIs have been pushed in response to would have been prevented had the scanners been in use, and none of them would have been prevented effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if there are better, cheaper ways to get better security, please elaborate.
So far, these scanners are the best idea I've heard, and most critics of them are short on ideas.
The critics aren't short on ideas by any measure.
Isn't it true though that Muslims consider dogs "unclean"? Wouldn't they be offended by having dogs sniff them and such?
Paranoia? Paranoid about what, exactly?Kmarion wrote:
No not anything. They aren't shoving their hands up your ass. Paranoia will eat you away. Get a grip son.mikkel wrote:
That's the kind of disinterested attitude that lets the TSA get away with anything. "Well, they're keeping us safe, so they can do whatever they want to do".Kmarion wrote:
If anyone wants to peek at my junk to keep me alive, have a ball. Pun intended.
The whole-body imagers are supposed to expedite the screening process and increase security, but do neither successfully. There are better, cheaper and more efficient methods, but the people who swallow the tripe that the TSA publicise are the people who are allowing the government to treat the flying public like Zeks being transported to Gulags, to borrow an apt phrase.
You're eroding the privacy and freedom of everyone through your unquestioning attitude towards an agency that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy.
What kind of fallacious argument is that? When did I even begin to suggest anything even resembling this? Take your tenuous connections elsewhere.Kmarion wrote:
You think the TSA just wants to check your shit out for no reason? Don't flatter yourself.