Women banned from flight for refusing scan

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I'd like you to get me the entire specs for a machine currently in use. Can you? Most likely not because that would be a breach of security. My point being that you don't KNOW what scanners are in use and which ones aren't. For all you know every airport has both.

reply to post by Death_Kron

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

Would you support a policy where Government forces you to be vaccinated in order to patron a specific business.

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...

If you really feel that way then shouldn't these scanners be installed everywhere masses of people congregate. Why am I only forced to be "protected" when I enter an airline. What about buses, boats, malls, sporting events, restaurants, etc. They have all been sights of terrorist attacks.

reply to post by NoJoker13


That attack was in 1972, ahve you anything more recent? Because going for over 30 years without an attack, not using the scanners is rather significant don't you think? Also they are trialing the scanners, but still after 30 years it seems overkill

You basically have proven my point. We could learn from Israeli security. As for the idea that it could happen, well anythig could happen. What i find incredibly funny about people like yourself is that you think airliners are the big threat because of 9/11 and yet it would be remarkably easy to create a massive bomb using every day items, park them in a truck and leave set it off outside a building. Fireworks, gas canisters, oxygen cylinders etc etc.

You focus on things like the airport and ignore the reality.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by v3_exceed

The reality is that these scanners have little to do with security and a lot to do with the industry of terrorism.

If however these scanners can save even one persons life then they are worth the inconvenience of a very low resolution image.

This, I just can't agree with. The number of lives lost to secure the freedom of person cannot be sacrificed for a single life. Many people throughout history have used the expression "save the children" or "the sanctity of a human life" to justify extreme horrors against the very people they would save.

Aside from the two obvious trolls in this thread (and they are WAY obvious), there are some very good points being brought up. We cannot just target Muslims, as you point out the IRA used terror tactics and were not Muslim. So simply racially profiling will not work. Millimeter scans will fault with insertable explosive containers. So not perfect either. eg: 3 "terrorists" board a plane each with 2oz nitroglycerin inserted anally. Plane decompresses at altitude, everybody dies. Make no mistake, these scanners will be at the bus stations, train stations, malls and any other place that people congregate, just in due time.

Look at the oppression of the public in the UK today. People are being arrested for simply taking a photograph. Is this the freedom promised in the constitution? I think not. When each freedom dies, so does part of what the USA was founded on. That each person had the freedoms that made the USA the envy of the world.

As it is there is no easy answer as long as the government and their buddies profit from terrorism.

..Ex

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I'd like you to get me the entire specs for a machine currently in use. Can you? Most likely not because that would be a breach of security. My point being that you don't KNOW what scanners are in use and which ones aren't. For all you know every airport has both.

The government has to inform the public when it comes to health issues. A repeated exposure to x-rays is most certainly an issue and somethign which may have to be included on medical records. If they did not then in future they may find themselves being sued with a class action.

You are now clutching rather hopefully at straws because you brought up a machine that is not in use and dared to ridicule me for criticising one that was in use.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


They do use the scanners along side their basic security force. Again ISRAEL D O E S U S E S C A N N E R S. There i spelled it out for you, you get it this time? Also I had already said there hadn't been a major incident after that but in all reality how many awful events have happened in the US before 911?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


No I'm not and the radiation on both machines is low enough not to harm someone who flew daily!!!!!

Screw saving lives, why should I care about anybody but myself? All I care about, is that people may look at my small penis. I don't want anybody to know that I have a small penis, so I don't care about any potential terrorist act, as long as me and my small penis aren't disclosed from airport security. If that got out, I would just..DIE!..well, not really, but I would be embarrassed. So sorry folks, I think we should risk lives, so my small penis isn't seen. But if my plane gets hijacked, then me and my small penis will be pissed.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


And in order to "learn" from israeli security our country would have to adopt the same way of thinking that Israel has which is... Anyone who isn't Israeli is a protential terrorist! Now thats what you want for the US? Because the basic Israeli person may zoom through the airport but if your from palestine, it may be a little longer. And again Israel invented the first machines for this technology.

Originally posted by harvib
Why am I only forced to be "protected" when I enter an airline. What about buses, boats, malls, sporting events, restaurants, etc. They have all been sights of terrorist attacks.

I shouldn't even really need to answer that question...

reply to post by TravisT


Hahahaha i wonder if imaginary feels this way... hmmmmm.

Because clearly other peoples deaths aren't worth doing anything about.

Originally posted by TravisT
Screw saving lives, why should I care about anybody but myself? All I care about, is that people may look at my small penis. I don't want anybody to know that I have a small penis, so I don't care about any potential terrorist act, as long as me and my small penis aren't disclosed from airport security. If that got out, I would just..DIE!..well, not really, but I would be embarrassed. So sorry folks, I think we should risk lives, so my small penis isn't seen. But if my plane gets hijacked, then me and my small penis will be pissed.

That seems to be imaginary's point of view, he would rather sacrifice peoples lives because he doesn't think its right for people to be seen naked.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Hahahaha beat you to it.

And if he doesn't feel this way how does he feel about these people dieing?

Also would it be wonrg to have everyone who's opposed to the scanners to be sent the bills for the funerals of any American death on an Airline? Because if thats the case remove the scanners and let these people have someone elses deaths on thier hands.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

reply to post by Death_Kron

I shouldn't even really need to answer that question...

LOL. Why? Surely your television must have given you the logic on why only airline passengers are forced to be "protected".

reply to post by harvib


Without a television you probably never would've gotten that picture of the Tank man! Just an FYI.

reply to post by NoJoker13


Exactly my friend, I wonder if imaginary thinks the body scanners would of been useful in preventing 9/11 or not?

reply to post by Death_Kron

That seems to be imaginary's point of view, he would rather sacrifice peoples lives because he doesn't think its right for people to be seen naked.

Maybe he just feels businesses should be in charge of their own affairs and if people feel them to be inadequate then they have a choice not to fly.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

They do use the scanners along side their basic security force. Again ISRAEL D O E S U S E S C A N N E R S. There i spelled it out for you, you get it this time? Also I had already said there hadn't been a major incident after that but in all reality how many awful events have happened in the US before 911?

Israel is trialing scanners, do not say it as if they are using them everywhere They have gone without an attack for over 30 years, including the time during and after 9/11 and that was before using scanners so again you points fall down. The scanners are overkill.

However after reading through it all again i must say it doesn't matter and i think as i am repeating myself i'll just leave it at this.


"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

If you cannot comprehend the beauty of those words then i simply pity you. Freedoms and privacy can be sacrificed at every turn to make you feel safer but to be free and have privacy means you must accept the dangers that surround the two ideas. We could all be completely safe if we accepted a chip in the hand, a dna database, cameras everywhere and other measures but life would be truly horrible.

Our security has worked remarkably well until now. You may bring up 9/11 but it was a tiny blip on the radar. Understand that if a terrorist wants to cause carnage that there are many materials available to do so and it is sad you focus on the airlines when there are far easier and more dangerous ways to cause carnage.

Grab a large truck, pack it with gas and oxygen cylinders, cutting into them to weaken the structure. Pack the truck with fireworks or if you can get a hold of it, det cord and watch how much damage that does. Hell you could go out and steal a load of fertilizer if you were feeling adventurous.

Yet you pick on the airlines as the nexus of danger.

reply to post by harvib


Exactly you don't like the scanners, DON'T FLY! Because last time I checked you don't need to.

reply to post by harvib


Thought it was common sense that terrorists target planes and airports because they contain larger amounts of people than buses' or restauarants?

Obviously not...