Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

[Coito ergo sum]

Go into my subforum and read the last thread I posted. Note the "Death to Arabs!" and "Thanks to me, there are no Arabs here." Words from one of the Jewish thieves who forced Arabs farmers off their own land and stole water wells at gun point.

Palestinians have tons of weapons. They can go back in and kill the thieves. I don't generally believe Muslim propaganda, though. It's quite often exaggeration, hyperbole and "taquiya" (sp?). But, if it's their land, then Hamas should use some of its katyusha rockets, hundreds of which have been fired into Israel, and fire at the thieving Jews who stole the innocent Arabs' farms.

Oh, so now you are advocating the Palestinians kill the Jews? What a 720 degree turn. A lot of the "Muslim propaganda" is true in regards to Israel. Just look at all the threads I've started in my little subforum. All true, and they read like the Elders of Zion but are written by conscientious Jewish reporters!

If what you say is true, then they should. If settlers are coming into Palestinian towns and driving Palestinians out of their homes, then Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. I have a strong suspicion that the truth is not as you suggest.

And the USA doesn't give billions of dollars to the citizens of Saudi Arabia. The USA finances the tyrannical rule of the "Royal family" in Saudi Arabia. That is big reason why people in that region don't like the USA. The reason you ask? Oil.

The USA doesn't give billions of dollars to "the people" of Israel either.

And Iraq? HAHAHA. You make me laugh if you think it is doing "great." How about go walk down some streets there and shout that you are an American?

I know for a fact I can't do that safely in Ramallah and elsewhere in the "Palestinian Territories."

It doesn't matter how "often" they are attacked. They are attacked, and if one succeeds the loss of life will be heavy and the resulting damage will be tremendous. It's worth trying to prevent.

I know you don't care about the hundreds of people that might be on a plane that gets blown up, and I know you don't care about their friends and family. I know you don't care about the people on the ground that might get hurt, or the resulting economic fallout. I know you don't care about any of that, because you support Muslim groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizb'Allah, Fateh, and countries like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia - so, you actually want western civilians to die horrible deaths - you think it's o.k. for the "downtrodden" (that's a laugh) Muslims to kill people to get what they want.

Funny thing, the USA and Israel don't give a shit about bombing Muslim/Arab/Persian/non-White civilians in their homes. Note all the civilians the USA and Israel have killed in the past 10 years disguised as the "War on Terror" when it is actually about stealing land and oil for White-like people.

Sure we do. It's the USA who defended Muslims in Kosovo against lily-white Serbs. It's the US that defended Kuwait against the annexation by Saddam Hussein. There are two examples.

The "war on terror" is the fault of terrorists and terrorist groups. The world is too small and the danger of catastrophic attacks is too great to allow it to go on. We are about to see what it's like for a fanatical, apocalyptic, theocratic regime in Iran to have the means to carry out its stated desires. You can side with those bastards all you like. I will choose the side that is in favor of Western Enlightenment values, and liberal government.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are patdowns sexual harassment?

"Obviously, many TSA personnel take the patdown job for economic reasons. However, since the TSA does not screen personnel to determine a history of sexual offense, and given the prevalence of abusers, it cannot be ruled out that a certain percentage of TSA personnel, are themselves sexual abuse victims, and potential sexual offenders. A high percentage of male abuse victims will not self-report as such."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tri ... harassment

Maybe a TSA employee should argue that being compelled to fondle breasts and vagina, or penises and testicles, is itself sexual harassment.

The TSA would argue it's a bona fide occupational qualification or job duty, but then we could put on trial the need for the pat downs themselves.....lol

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON - Jihadis bent on concocting a "new kind of terrorism" are brainstorming how to surgically implant explosives to make undetectable Frankenbombers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z17LzxHhYY

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are in denial if you don't see that in and around Israel, Jews do most of the terrorism. You want to visit those holy sites? They were stolen from the Palestinians. Not even the USA recognizes the illegitimate gains of the Jewish terrorists. How about people killed by gun fire? How about people killed by bombs? If you want to discriminate right, then you would want to search Jews, not Muslims since Jews shoot and bomb waaaaay more people in and around Israel. This is why you should not look to Israel for advice, it would end up making the TSA into the KKK with a side of AIPAC for good measure.

[Coito ergo sum]

Donna D'Errico of Baywatch former fame claims that she was singled out for a full body scan because of her looks.

Naturally, however, in expressing her outrage, she states that while she should not be singled out because of her looks, other people should be singled out because of their looks.

She said, ‘My boyfriend looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems,’ she claimed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z17RsXQU5k

LOL -- she thinks people who "look" more like terrorists should be scanned before she gets scanned. Otherwise, she's being singled out because she's attractive.

Nude images of her are available at the touch of a few keys on google, but she thinks that the TSA people wanted to see the blurry grey image of her outline for jollies.

[Animavore]

the more i think about this issue the more i think it's bullshit. they want to treat us like criminals for a security scare they made up. it's circular reasoning at best.

[Coito ergo sum]

the more i think about this issue the more i think it's bullshit. they want to treat us like criminals for a security scare they made up. it's circular reasoning at best.

You think there aren't people trying to blow up airplanes? That's just made up?

[Animavore]

the more i think about this issue the more i think it's bullshit. they want to treat us like criminals for a security scare they made up. it's circular reasoning at best.

You think there aren't people trying to blow up airplanes? That's just made up?

i think this bullshit about an apparent and constant 'threat' is made up.
and people have already posted evidence that these measures will not stop terrorists making these intrusive measures unnecessary. it's bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

the more i think about this issue the more i think it's bullshit. they want to treat us like criminals for a security scare they made up. it's circular reasoning at best.

You think there aren't people trying to blow up airplanes? That's just made up?

i think this bullshit about an apparent and constant 'threat' is made up.

O.k. then. So what isn't made up? Describe what you believe to be the actual state of affairs.

and people have already posted evidence that these measures will not stop terrorists making these intrusive measures unnecessary. it's bullshit.

No. They've posted some evidence that some measures don't stop all threats. What we had before the scanners and more vigorous pat downs didn't stop all terrorists either. Now we're doing what we were doing before, plus the additional measures. They certainly are going to find more things than the original methods alone.

For example - the "evidence" you refer to before was that the scanner wouldn't have stopped the underwear bomber. Maybe not. But, the pat down could have, and what we have is a system of scanning and advanced pat downs.

Plus, a guy with a bunch of explosives in his underpants is never going to be sure what the scanner will pick up. Having the scanner might deter him from trying. It's certainly better than not having it at all.

By your logic, since we can't plug all the holes 100% - fuck it - just throw the bags on the plane, and don't bother with any security check in. Those don't work to "stop terrorists" either. Right?

[Animavore]

if you don't mind people sticking their noses in your private affairs that's your thing. as a person that keeps to himself i hate it. you don't see me pushing people around, demanding to know what's in their pockets. using my numbers and weapons to harass and intimidate. treating everyone with paranoia and suspicion. shit like this is one step away from a police state. before you know it you're getting searched in every government building, every school and public office.

[Coito ergo sum]

if you don't mind people sticking their noses in your private affairs that's your thing. as a person that keeps to himself i hate it. you don't see me pushing people around, demanding to know what's in their pockets. using my numbers and weapons to harass and intimidate. treating everyone with paranoia and suspicion. shit like this is one step away from a police state. before you know it you're getting searched in every government building, every school and public office.

I never said I didn't mind. What's that got to do with the whole airplane-bomb thing being a manufactured, bullshit threat in toto?

I'm sorry you hate it, but airlines have had security for a long time. Metal detectors - pat downs. It happens when we go into government buildings quite often too, already. I don't know a government building, state or federal, that doesn't have security guards and metal detectors in full force.

What's the alternative? Are you suggesting that nobody be searched, and we leave airplane bombings to the "wait until it happens and then send in the in the investigation team" brand of law enforcement?

If you don't search people, eventually someone is going to stroll on board with a device. Are you suggesting we just live with it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Donna D'Errico of Baywatch former fame claims that she was singled out for a full body scan because of her looks.

Naturally, however, in expressing her outrage, she states that while she should not be singled out because of her looks, other people should be singled out because of their looks.

She said, ‘My boyfriend looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems,’ she claimed.

She was saying, "He was not singled out for his looks." Just thought you should know that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Donna D'Errico of Baywatch former fame claims that she was singled out for a full body scan because of her looks.

Naturally, however, in expressing her outrage, she states that while she should not be singled out because of her looks, other people should be singled out because of their looks.

She said, ‘My boyfriend looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems,’ she claimed.

She was saying, "He was not singled out for his looks." Just thought you should know that.

I know that, although that would more appropriately be a paraphrase. She was also saying that he looked more like a terrorist than she does and got through security no problem - implying that people who "look" a certain way should get the attention before she does. i.e. - based on their look.

And, did your mother teach you to be a snarky snot, or did you just learn that on your own?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Donna D'Errico of Baywatch former fame claims that she was singled out for a full body scan because of her looks.

Naturally, however, in expressing her outrage, she states that while she should not be singled out because of her looks, other people should be singled out because of their looks.

She said, ‘My boyfriend looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems,’ she claimed.

She was saying, "He was not singled out for his looks." Just thought you should know that.

I know that, although that would more appropriately be a paraphrase. She was also saying that he looked more like a terrorist than she does and got through security no problem - implying that people who "look" a certain way should get the attention before she does. i.e. - based on their look.

And, did your mother teach you to be a snarky snot, or did you just learn that on your own?

I watched you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Donna D'Errico of Baywatch former fame claims that she was singled out for a full body scan because of her looks.

Naturally, however, in expressing her outrage, she states that while she should not be singled out because of her looks, other people should be singled out because of their looks.

She said, ‘My boyfriend looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems,’ she claimed.

She was saying, "He was not singled out for his looks." Just thought you should know that.

I know that, although that would more appropriately be a paraphrase. She was also saying that he looked more like a terrorist than she does and got through security no problem - implying that people who "look" a certain way should get the attention before she does. i.e. - based on their look.

And, did your mother teach you to be a snarky snot, or did you just learn that on your own?

I watched you.

Gotcha, Chief.