BF2S Forums "We've got an OPT OUT!!!"

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

It's useless, it's not going to save any lives. For frequent flyers it will actually give them a higher risk of cancer.

Well, cancer is really one of the lesser worries about scanners.  Tanning booths are much more likely to give you cancer than one of these scanners -- even if you're a frequent flyer.

There's even evidence to suggest that cell phones pose a greater risk for cancer than these scanners.

It's still useless and ineffective?

How would this have caught the shoe bomber?

While I agree that it's overkill, it's probably easier to catch the shoe bomber now than it would have been in the past, since you have to take your shoes off and put them through the counter scanner.

Personally, I just think people should accept the risks of flying and not really worry with much security.  As bad as it might be that occasional hijackings occur, it's not worth making everyone go through with multiple checks that don't accomplish much.

Also, whether it's done governmentally or privately, security is usually farmed out to the lowest bidder.  The employees of these agencies aren't exactly Secret Service members.  This is why you end up with crazy shit happening like in the video John posted.

best security idea: make people eat bacon at the gate, if you don't you hate america.

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-11-22 13:52:51)

If he would have been picked for the rub down.

Its worth noting that neither the shoe bomber nor underwear bomber were successful. Being alert and aware of your surroundings is the best defense.

Kmar wrote:

Its worth noting that neither the shoe bomber nor underwear bomber were successful. Being alert and aware of your surroundings is the best defense.

Agreed on this and these Defenses give a false sense of security.

As far as the underwear bomber, the wick could have been in his carry on luggage and by passed.

The other thing every ones been saying that if the "planned attacker" ends up in the airport it's too late anyway. Either in the air or in the Airport on that long ass line both with probably have the same casualties. Just one might have less property damage.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

best security idea: make people eat bacon at the gate, if you don't you hate america.

Booze and bacon. I'd fly more often!

booze first and bacon optional so the jews wont get all uppity.

Kmar wrote:

If they have no problem with suicide I think they will have no problem with eating a bit of bacon. Remeber these guys are psycho paths, and they think they are working for the greater good.

they wont get their 72 virgins if they touch swine

11 Bravo wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Its worth noting that neither the shoe bomber nor underwear bomber were successful. Being alert and aware of your surroundings is the best defense.

Agreed on this and these Defenses give a false sense of security.

As far as the underwear bomber, the wick could have been in his carry on luggage and by passed.

The other thing every ones been saying that if the "planned attacker" ends up in the airport it's too late anyway. Either in the air or in the Airport on that long ass line both with probably have the same casualties. Just one might have less property damage.

so your solution is....

Solution is bomb sniffing dogs if you're so worried about it. They're cheaper and more effective, but there really is no solution.

Live a life, make sure people know that they're the only ones who can defend themselves on an airplane. Two failed attempted bombings does not a threat make.

That's not how they work.

I really don't think that there was much wrong with the U.S. Airport security to begin with.   Think about it, 9/11 would never have happened in a post 9/11 world.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Its worth noting that neither the shoe bomber nor underwear bomber were successful. Being alert and aware of your surroundings is the best defense.

Agreed on this and these Defenses give a false sense of security.

As far as the underwear bomber, the wick could have been in his carry on luggage and by passed.

The other thing every ones been saying that if the "planned attacker" ends up in the airport it's too late anyway. Either in the air or in the Airport on that long ass line both with probably have the same casualties. Just one might have less property damage.

Actually .. now that I think back.. neither the shoe bomber nor underwear bomber came in from US airports. They flew in originating from flights overseas. None of this would have mattered.

11 Bravo wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

That's not how they work.

I really don't think that there was much wrong with the U.S. Airport security to begin with.   Think about it, 9/11 would never have happened in a post 9/11 world.

i know.  the issue was the old policy of dealing with terrorists.  however, they are thinking of new shit....why shouldnt we?

Because it's not really new shit, they know about this. If they're going to use plans again, don't you think they're going to try to get around the screener somehow?
Profiling will usually get it right, instead of putting every name on a Do Not Fly List.
Basically it's spend the money on investments the politicians have money in..

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-11-22 16:31:26)

you know, ex-armed forces have a pretty dirty track record in regards to domestic terrorism.  Might want to grow out that buzz-cut, buddy.