Women banned from flight for refusing scan

I knew this would happen and i knew it would be a muslim.

Follow the rules like everybody else and you wont get in trouble.

Im lookin at you, muslims.

I didn't read all of the 9 pages before my post but at the end of the day, if you have got nothing to hide, what is the problem?

I would rather be safe than worry about flying anywhere.

Also, it's the Muslims own fault for this. You don't see Christians, Catholics or even Buddists going around blowing themselves up and killing others do you?

When did you last hear of a group from Sunday School spouting nonsense about Jihad and Al Quieda etc?

The Muslims are causing all the problems around the World so it's only fair they are checked before going onto a flight where you or I could be killed due to their stupidity.

If they don't want to be scanned, then they should have a machine they walk past that detonates any explosive substance. See how many volunteer for that one

The ironic thing about the full body scans is that they are becoming mandatory because of Islamic extremism. Think about the 911, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber.

Now, Muslims are saying it's a violation of their religion to be scanned.


I don't want to be irradiated anymore than is necessary so I'm not happy about this possibility. But if I want to fly somewhere I will have to deal with it.

Our scanner says that your clear to fly but you may want to have your prostate checked.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by Wildbob77]

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Wildbob77]

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Wildbob77]

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I don't want to be irradiated anymore than is necessary so I'm not happy about this possibility. But if I want to fly somewhere I will have to deal with it.

Exactly, and if they save just one human life they are worthwhile.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

That sentiment is lost on many here.

So a blurred low resolution image is against your essential liberty?

Are you really that memorable that yours is the one they will remember out of the thousands they see each day?

Ya I mean thats another obvious part of this, THESE WOMEN ARE FREAKING MUSLIMS!!! I mean is there another piece of irony I missed here? I find it funny how sexuality is taboo to the muslim people but blowing yourself up for your god isn't? And don't give me that muslim extremist # either.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Oh dear! The very scanners you are debating against can spot metallic AND non-metallic objects regardless of where they are hidden.

Do you read your own news articles? They bounce rays off the skin, so if an object is internal it will not show up. Seriously you keep trying to prove your point only to further prove your ignorance of the technology you are arguing for.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Security officials claim it is a far more effective way of countering potential terrorists because it detects the outline of any solid object — such as plastic explosives or ceramic knives — which conventional metal detectors would miss.

Link

Yes the external outline, if it is pressed up against the body lol, not if it is internal. On dear more ignorance.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

You have already been proven wrong with regards to the lightning.

I'm sorry where was i proven wrong? Please quote figures.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Surely a security guard touching your skin physically is more invasive than a scan image?

Your argument has fallen to pieces once again...

Really no, an adult touching another adult, even strangers, with consent, wearing clothes is as natural as a breeze upon your face. Viewing someone naked against their will is not natural and forcing people into that position with the threat of being unable to go about their business is not natural either,.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by BritofTexas


Hhahaha ya he probably is and for all the wrong reasons. Very good point but he doesn't mind being patted down by the 5-0 so who knows where his heads at.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Also you must have missed my link about how they do have a working full scan machine. www.wired.com...

You decided to go after Kron's post because that seemed an easier target for you but since I posted this article everything Kron said is a fact because they do have machines capable of that use.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


X-Rays don't penetrate clothing now do they not?

Stop being a hypocrite, if you had problems with "personal privacy" then you wouldn't allow yourself to be physically searched.

Your telling me being viewed is more prying than being touched?

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

That sentiment is lost on many here.

So a blurred low resolution image is against your essential liberty?

Are you really that memorable that yours is the one they will remember out of the thousands they see each day?

It is unecessary. Lets just talk about expense for a moment. Once again and oddly this is something people don't want to address, Israel has suffered hardly any attacks and yet they do not employ such technologies.

My simple question, why can we not simply adopt the strategies of Israel when it comes to airport security? They seem to have it nailed.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Also you were proven wrong on the lightning by me!!!! Lightning is a random event, a terrorist attack is a intentional event. Lightning debunked, you comparing a random event to a intentional occurance.... DEBUNKED!

reply to post by NoJoker13


The machine you talk of does not appear to be in use. I went after his post because it was relavant to the situation, the scanners he mentions are in use. When yours are in use give me another thread

Also this technology is using low dose x-rays, this leads to problems or worker exposure and even frequent flyer exposure levels. That is a very real health concern.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Also you were proven wrong on the lightning by me!!!! Lightning is a random event, a terrorist attack is a intentional event. Lightning debunked, you comparing a random event to a intentional occurance.... DEBUNKED!

Ahh i see well ok, how about cars then? There are more car deaths than terrorist incidents. However you missed the point didn't you lol. The fact is that terrorism is such a rare thing it is hardly something we need to take a tougher stance on in regards to airline travel. That was the point but obviously you didn't quite get it You are more likely to die making love!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Lets use an analogy shall we?

Do you take your vaccinations? They hurt a little bit but they protect against something ten times worse.

Same principle with the scanners, they may embarass someone slightly, but the reason they are there is to protect against something 100 times worse than a little hurt pride.

If you think this "invasion of privacy" is a greater threat than a terrorist attack then your seriously deluded...

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Also never an attack in an Israeli airport? Think again:

en.wikipedia.org...

Also yes there hasn't been a terrorist attack there in ages but that doesn't mean there won't be. You may also want to know that Israel does use full body scanners and they were originally produced there.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

Hhahaha ya he probably is and for all the wrong reasons. Very good point but he doesn't mind being patted down by the 5-0 so who knows where his heads at.

Dear me, more insinuations, and now about my looks. I'm sure that by responding you will think you upset me, but i am bringing this up to show once again that those who cannot hold a decent argument will resort to ad hom attacks.

Care to abandon them now and stick to the facts or would you prefer to keep slipping these in where you can?

Pitiful.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Cars can be a random event as well, 99% of car accidents aren't intentional. So again comparing Terrorists to car crashes isn't correct and therefor is DEBUNKED!... again.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I've been sticking to the facts we'res your reply on my full body scanners that CAN detect everything and also where is your reply on the fact that Israel does use full body scanners.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Are you talking about sniffer dogs?

Do you know how much it costs to train them and their handlers?

How many would it take to check the thousands of passengers going through Heathrow or J.F.K. on a daily basis?

Could they sniff out your plastic punani pistol?

As I've previously posted, dogs go for any smell that takes their interest.