More flying 'security' mega-idiocy

[HYHYBT]

Airplanes are so much trouble... if I wanted to kill a few hundred people (I don't) and cause mass hysteria (ditto) and if I had an organization of, say, 20 people (also a no) it would be very simple to have each one go to a different city and set them off in, say, randomly-selected fast food outlets during lunch rush. All within a few minutes of each other. Or Wal-Marts and malls on a Saturday afternoon. Places most people go to all the time, and where it would be totally impractical to implement the sort of security we have at airports as a response, so everyone would either have to pretty much give up going out in public at all or else get used to the idea that bad things can happen.

[ngc_7331]

And yes, people are entitled for thinking kids should get a free pass through security.

Would you care to show exactly where someone said this kid or any kid was getting a free pass? She passed through security, the same security that anyone has to go through to board a plane. How is that a free pass?

And since you seem to want to pick apart the question rather than answer it, I'll reword it: Do you agree with pulling a toddler off a plane for having the same name as someone on the no-fly list or do you think it's as stupid as the rest of us but you just like taking the most widely unpopular viewpoint?

[Greenday]

And nobody but you has said, or even inferred, that the kid was getting (or should get) any sort of a free pass.

No need to pat down 4 year olds. -.-

Page 1. I just don't understand why people think children will never be used as weapons. The "they've never used them before" argument just doesn't work with me.

[Gravekeeper]

Page 1. I just don't understand why people think children will never be used as weapons. The "they've never used them before" argument just doesn't work with me.

I was referring to the last TSA debacle we had a topic on where they gloriously fucked up in regards to how to handle children. I didn't say they should get a free pass.

Nice try at twisting my words though.

[ngc_7331]

Still waiting on an answer:

Do you agree with pulling a toddler off a plane for having the same name as someone on the no-fly list or do you think it's as stupid as the rest of us but you just like taking the most widely unpopular viewpoint?

Why are you trying to avoid the question?

[Duelist925]

How about this, then, if I may

"No need to yank off the plane and pat down four year olds who have already gone through the draconian screening measures, and thus passed said security measures as a non risk"

Can you agree with that? Or will you avoid my question the same way you avoided ngc_7331's?

And if you answer neither question, I will gleefully accept that as admission that you're choosing the second option of ngc_7331's question (Thinking it just as stupid as the rest of us, but choosing the more unpopular viewpoint because....because. )

[bara]

Page 1. I just don't understand why people think children will never be used as weapons. The "they've never used them before" argument just doesn't work with me.

And no one was saying to give them a free pass or that they had never been used before.

As far as I can tell, only you have mentioned either.
I believe most of us are saying that there is no need to harass a small child because she gave her grandma a hug or had a name similar to that of a suspected terrorist.

The child passing through the detector again would have been more than enough for the little girl who ran back to give grandma a hug and a little common sense would have prevented the second.

A little thought, intelligence, common sense, or basic human decency would have prevented these incidents. That is what angers me about them. Any one of those alone would have prevented both of our most recent TSA/airline screw ups.

Essentially, this says to me 'hey bara, the people that are supposed to be protecting you from the bad guys need to be supervised when they brush their teeth or tie their shoes so they don't hurt themselves'. It hardly instills confidence in the system and certainly doesn't make me feel any safer than before.

[Greenday]

Still waiting on an answer:

Do you agree with pulling a toddler off a plane for having the same name as someone on the no-fly list or do you think it's as stupid as the rest of us but you just like taking the most widely unpopular viewpoint?

Why are you trying to avoid the question?

Well, if you looked at my previous points, where I already said it was ridiculous, you would have had your answer. I already stated that I disagreed with the No Fly List's current format and how it needs to be altered to avoid this kind of thing.

How about this, then, if I may

"No need to yank off the plane and pat down four year olds who have already gone through the draconian screening measures, and thus passed said security measures as a non risk"

Can you agree with that? Or will you avoid my question the same way you avoided ngc_7331's?

And if you answer neither question, I will gleefully accept that as admission that you're choosing the second option of ngc_7331's question (Thinking it just as stupid as the rest of us, but choosing the more unpopular viewpoint because....because. )

I'm going to ignore it because I've already answered it.

[HYHYBT]

You have a long career ahead of you in politics.

[ngc_7331]

Well, if you looked at my previous points, where I already said it was ridiculous, you would have had your answer. I already stated that I disagreed with the No Fly List's current format and how it needs to be altered to avoid this kind of thing.

So you're just going with the most unpopular and barely defendable viewpoint just because...because. I suspected as much. Good to know for sure.

[wolfie]

Let's talk more specific scenarios, if we're going to go down this rabbit hole.

We're already implicitly assuming that someone could get the supposed explosives into the airport unnoticed, and possibly onto the plane. For what purpose? Blowing up a single airliner and a casualty count with a maximum of ~300 people on the airplane (citation: largest commercial jet is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner), with a chance of a dozen or so more when it hits the ground.

If you're going to cite statistics, please don't make easily-disprovable statements. From the Wikipedia article you linked to, the Dreamliner can hold up to 290 people in a multi-class configuration, or up to 330 in a single-class (presumably short-range) configuration. The 747-400 can (from Wikipedia) hold up to 416 in a 3-class layout, 524 in a 2-class, and 660 in a single-class layout. Also from Wikipedia, the A380-800 can carry up to 525 people in a 3-class layout or 853 in an all-economy setup.

You have erroneously cited the Dreamliner as being the largest commercial jet - what other inaccuracies are there in your post?

[Nekojin]

If you're going to cite statistics, please don't make easily-disprovable statements. From the Wikipedia article you linked to, the Dreamliner can hold up to 290 people in a multi-class configuration, or up to 330 in a single-class (presumably short-range) configuration. The 747-400 can (from Wikipedia) hold up to 416 in a 3-class layout, 524 in a 2-class, and 660 in a single-class layout. Also from Wikipedia, the A380-800 can carry up to 525 people in a 3-class layout or 853 in an all-economy setup.

I stand corrected. I looked up the Dreamliner from remembering a recent radio show mentioning it as the largest. I failed to double-check that statistic. For that, I apologize.

You have erroneously cited the Dreamliner as being the largest commercial jet - what other inaccuracies are there in your post?

This, on the other hand, cannot be let go. Inferring other mistakes from one mistake is bad argumentation. It's a form of poisoning the well. If I've made mistakes, feel free to address them directly.

[Jetfire]

Looks like the TSA realized they should do some damage control... So Henry Kissinger came out and said he's been patted down by TSA and he " praised agents of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration for both their "professionalism" and "courtesy" while performing what he called "an important job.""

[Andara Bledin]

I spotted an article (it was in a newsletter that shows up in my work email), and they were crowing about how they've found gun parts in some toys and a blade in a walker. As if finding one of each somehow validates abusing the rights of millions of travelers.

Not only that, but both items were easily found in the bog-standard, been in use for decades luggage scanners, and neither case was an issue of flight safety.They don't mention what happened to the walker lady, but the guy with the gun parts in his son's toys was allowed to board his flight.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Looks like the TSA realized they should do some damage control... So Henry Kissinger came out and said he's been patted down by TSA and he " praised agents of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration for both their "professionalism" and "courtesy" while performing what he called "an important job.""

Odd since it's not like the TSA had any damage on their end to control anyway.