Women banned from flight for refusing scan

reply to post by Death_Kron

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

9/11 was supposedly done with box cutters. A person couldn't shove a non metallic object with the equivalent cutting power in an orifice? Let's face it, you fellas are going to have to support cavity searches.

Originally posted by harvib
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.

Then don't fly then! Who do you people think you are? If you can't accept or agree with standard protocol then you can't fly, why do you seem to think your the exceptions and just because you don't agree with it you don't have to do it????

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Clearly your logics flawed you can't see that, which in that case I would say your mind is flawed. Debate done, no0 need to run around in circles with someone who cares only for themselves. Like I said when the next airline tragedy is, I'll tell um to send you the bill since you think taking less steps to prevent it is a good idea.

Lets just look at that sentence alone, you wouldn't take steps to possibly prevent a tragedy even though you could. Thats Einstiens definition of insanity my friend. So is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results... Which clearly you favor that course, so therefor you favor INSANITY. Debate Done. Your not worthy.

reply to post by v3_exceed


I am not a fan of racial profiling either.

However if it is a Muslim group trying to cause terrorism, then chances are the terrorist will be Muslim and not my 90 year old white haired grandmother. (Who incidentally was patted down before a flight to Germany and would much rather have been scanned.)

The I.R.A. tended to be Irish so it would have been pointless checking a 9 year old Kenyan boy.

I believe the threat of terrorism in everyday life is being overstated to keep us scared and under control. I don't even like the term terrorist as these people are common criminals and terrorist glorifies them.

Traditionally though airlines have been big targets for these people, so on this we have to do something.

reply to post by harvib


I'm not repeating myself.

Maybe you guys should should support no security protocols what so ever?

reply to post by Death_Kron

Thought it was common sense that terrorists target planes and airports because they contain larger amounts of people than buses' or restauarants? Obviously not...

Oh. LOL. Is that the logic being given. The first world trade center attack was done with an automobile. Many of the larger malls, office buildings, night clubs, etc. regularly have more people then an airliner. Besides how many lives need to be at risk before you are a proponent of forced "protection"?

Originally posted by NoJoker13
Lets just look at that sentence alone, you wouldn't take steps to possibly prevent a tragedy even though you could. Thats Einstiens definition of insanity my friend. So is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results... Which clearly you favor that course, so therefor you favor INSANITY. Debate Done. Your not worthy.

I could not resist this.

So not preventing tragedy when you have the power to is the definition of insanity. Well then cameras in everyones homes would prevent tremendous amounts of tragedy, like spousal abuse and paedophilia, and if you do not support that then you are insane. So do you want cameras in everyones homes?

Oh and if you are to say i am not worthy then please recognise the difference between your and you're.

You're not worthy, this is my last post here, absolutely, bye bye

reply to post by harvib


Either way, it doesn't matter.

It's sad to see people who aren't concerned about stopping terrorist attacks because their "privacy" is being invaded by a simple image of themselve.

It's funny how you don't think a pat down search is an invasion of privacy i.e. thats physical touching but you think a body scanner image is.

reply to post by Death_Kron

Then don't fly then! Who do you people think you are? If you can't accept or agree with standard protocol then you can't fly, why do you seem to think your the exceptions and just because you don't agree with it you don't have to do it????

See, the way I see it, those that are so fearful that they would support a businesses affairs being intruded upon and forcing peoples "protection" against their will are the ones that shouldn't fly. Who do you people think you are to demand these intrusions so you can appease your fearful natures with a false sense of security. Ridiculous.

the scanner image is seen by noone but the scanner, if a scan is too much to ask for the security of the other passengers, the refuser(s) shouldn't be on the plane

reply to post by Death_Kron

Maybe you guys should should support no security protocols what so ever?

And maybe you guys should support full cavity searches in all public locations. Safety first, huh?

All people have to do is write the airlines. Tell them you will not fly until the scanners are removed. Trust me, businesses don't like losing money. If enough people write and stop flying, they will make changes.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Then don't fly then! Who do you people think you are? If you can't accept or agree with standard protocol then you can't fly, why do you seem to think your the exceptions and just because you don't agree with it you don't have to do it????

See, the way I see it, those that are so fearful that they would support a businesses affairs being intruded upon and forcing peoples "protection" against their will are the ones that shouldn't fly. Who do you people think you are to demand these intrusions so you can appease your fearful natures with a false sense of security. Ridiculous.

No, its ridiculous that people like you are unwilling to submit to a simple body scanner test because you believe that your privacy is being invaded when these scans could potentially save lives.

You sound like criminals who complain their human rights are being breached because they live in a prison cell with no television.

As I said before, I don't expect anyone to particulary enjoy going through a body scanner but if it helps stop terrorism then of course they are a good thing.

reply to post by Death_Kron

It's sad to see people who aren't concerned about stopping terrorist attacks because their "privacy" is being invaded by a simple image of themselve.

No, it is sad to see people so fearful and paranoid that they are so easily manipulated into accepting Government intrusion into the airline industry.

It's funny how you don't think a pat down search is an invasion of privacy i.e. thats physical touching but you think a body scanner image is.

Where did I make a statement about pat downs?

reply to post by mecheng

All people have to do is write the airlines. Tell them you will not fly until the scanners are removed. Trust me, businesses don't like losing money. If enough people write and stop flying, they will make changes.

The airlines have nothing to do with these intrusions...

reply to post by harvib


Please explain to me how this "government intrusion into the airline industry" benefits them?

Pat-downs was related to imaginary, but let me hear your stance on them? Why don't you find them offensive ?

Here we go...a couple of Pakistanis start screaming because they were not allowed to pass an added security measure freely...it had to happen.

"IM MUSLIM YOU CANT SCAN ME OR I´LL SCREAM RASICM..ITS AN ABUSE OF MY CIVIL LIBERTYS. MY LAWYER WILL SUE THE AIRPORT AND I´LL WIN FIFTY GRAND AND YOU¨LL BE ON THE STREET FOR DOING YOUR JOB....JUST WAIT AND SEE"

"I CANT PASS THROUGH YOUR SCANNER..ONLY MY HUSBAND CAN SEE ME NUDE..EVEN THOUGH I´LL BE FULLY CLOTHED, ITS BECAUSE IM MUSLIM"

Everyone knows the score...so why complain. Added security is for everyone, muslims, christians and jews, bhudists and atheists.

The issue over a couple of idiots sending the images by internet is an isolated incident...

Its simply another excuse by the over protected muslim community of England to rant and rave about their civil liberties which are far more protected than anyone that ISNT muslim.
England has spent too long walking on egg shells to appease a community which does very little to intergrate itself..using incidents like this to fuel the already strained situation in cities like Manchester.

Its time a leader in the muslim community took control of the situation and explained that not towing the line isnt helping Great Britain look on its muslim immigrants with anything but contempt.

Im sure this doent apply to All the muslim community, but there are many who still act in this manner.
This is not a rasict rant, rather an unfortunate truth








[edit on 4-3-2010 by andy1972]

reply to post by andy1972


Exactly!

reply to post by Death_Kron

No, its ridiculous that people like you are unwilling to submit to a simple body scanner test because you believe that your privacy is being invaded when these scans could potentially save lives.

Not to mention unknown health effects.

Based on your view point would be correct in assuming that you would support these scanners and other checkpoints in other locations as well? There have been many other locations besides airliners where peoples deaths could havebeen prevented by checkpoints. In fact more lives have been lost in buildings then on airlines.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So not preventing tragedy when you have the power to is the definition of insanity. Well then cameras in everyones homes would prevent tremendous amounts of tragedy, like spousal abuse and paedophilia, and if you do not support that then you are insane. So do you want cameras in everyones homes?

But that house is yours, you don't own the airline or airports, that's not even close to being the same thing. YOU make the rules in your house because it's YOURS. You DON'T make the rules in an airport, cause it's NOT yours, you don't control it. Here's a better example about a car you own. The car is yours, but if you don't buckle up for safety, then you will get a ticket. If using that seat-belt is such an inconvenience, it isn't the cops fault for issuing the ticket, it is YOUR inability to not care about the safety of you, or other drives on the road, in case of a potential accident. You can bitch and complain all you want, but you should know, that it is the law to wear a seatbelt. So, if you're going to drive, either wear the damn belt, or pay the consequences. Just like a plane, you own the ticket, but if you don't follow the rules, then you will be told you can't board the vehicle.

Flying a airplane is a luxury, one in which, takes preventative measures, in order to use. If you don't like those stipulations for such a luxury, then simply decline, and tell whoever it is you were supposed to be seeing, that you're to afraid that someone may look at your small penis.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by TravisT]