Women banned from flight for refusing scan

Originally posted by harvib
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.

Please! Apparently theres unknown side effects to mobile phones, our water supply, our fruit & veg, our alcohol, our TV masts etc etc

I would say yes if thse scanners helped stop terrorism then of course they should be installed but like I've mentioned previously amounts of times in this thread you have to draw a line.

I believe they are being installed in airports because of 9/11 and in an attempt to stop terrorist activity on planes.

It's sad our society has become like this but hey what can you do.

reply to post by harvib


Do the pilots and cabin crew not have a say in the safety of their workplace?

Just as long as you can breeze on a plane carrying who knows what?

Wow! This thread is moving quickly.
[edit on 4-3-2010 by BritofTexas]

[edit on 4-3-2010 by BritofTexas]

FOr the people against the scanner i have a question, what's the alternative? The Nigerian bomber had the bomb in his pants underneath his zipper.
Initially the idea was to search people exactly around that area, i dont think muslims would allow strange men or women to search their crotch etc.
Their fellow muslims brought this over themselves, they are to thank..

reply to post by Death_Kron

Please! Apparently theres unknown side effects to mobile phones, our water supply, our fruit & veg, our alcohol, our TV masts etc etc

Hence cancers becoming more frequent, more aggressive, and taking younger victims. Cancer is the number two fatal disease in this country. The equivalent of 3 planes a day could go down everyday of the year before airline deaths equate to cancer deaths. More radiation is exactly what we need so the irrationalists can feel safe.

I would say yes if thse scanners helped stop terrorism then of course they should be installed but like I've mentioned previously amounts of times in this thread you have to draw a line.

So how can you be so critical when some people feel the line has long since been crossed. Especially with measures that can be so easily circumvented?

It's sad our society has become like this but hey what can you do.

We can look at our fears with a rational eye. We can check statistics in order to discover if what we are being told is founded. We can realize that we are all going to die at some point and that a life of waiting in line to pass through checkpoints is not life. We can turn off our tv's!

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."---Benjamin Franklin

Damn straight.

It's like these new machines, that are supposed to detect explosive residue on your hands...

What a waste of time and money!

A high-tech technology, that can be easily defeated...by simply WASHING YOUR HANDS or WEARING GLOVES!!!!

Are you kidding me?

I hope we saved the receipts....

Can't wait until people with certain medications (I'm looking at you folks taking Nitro), try and go through, gumming up the lines....or people who work with similar substances in their workplace, who then try and take a flight.

Does somebody REALLY think a plane hijacking would work again, these days? I don't know about you, but the moment somebody tries that crap again, he's getting dog-piled, and then beaten to a bloody pulp...probably by as many guys who can fit in and land a punch or kick....

reply to post by BritofTexas

Do the pilots and cabin crew not have a say in the safety of their workplace?

LOL. DO they have a say? If they believe that these scanners are hazardous to their health do they have a say? If they believe that only cavity searches will insure their safety, do they have a choice? Their employers do not have a choice in the security procedures, so most certainly the pilots and cabin crews do not.

reply to post by Foppezao

FOr the people against the scanner i have a question, what's the alternative? The Nigerian bomber had the bomb in his pants underneath his zipper.

Thank god he didn't have it up his rectum. The paranoid irrationalist in our respective Countries would be using the same arguments in support of cavity searches.

+1 on the comment, about the degarde one relisgously and privately. I already knew was a matter of time before airport security started masturbating or passing out scan screen photos of naked strangers to the others. it does violate free will and self privacy, something the order of how thigs are going wants. so she is muslim. BIG DEAL its racist any which way you slice this bread. suppose it was christians or catholics suspected of bombing things...it would simply have been dismissed.
im not muslim, but damn..not every muslim is an extremsit!!! ide personaly like to argue it to the thinkers on this one...why not set up full body scanners while yuor at it, and look for escaped nazis from wwII still alive, or canibals that havnt been caught yet, how about governors and senators knwon for laundering money? can that screen see through thier money belt, and pulled aside fr intertogationa nd questioning as well?

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Foppezao

 

FOr the people against the scanner i have a question, what's the alternative? The Nigerian bomber had the bomb in his pants underneath his zipper.

Thank god he didn't have it up his rectum. The paranoid irrationalist in our respective Countries would be using the same arguments in support of cavity searches.

Or what if these women where hidding a ""snuke"?

X-ray top of that? which now comes to mind, why dont they just use complete x-ray? [like you can see the skeleton]



[edit on 4-3-2010 by Foppezao]

reply to post by Foppezao

which now comes to mind, why dont they just use x-ray?

The health hazards of repeated x-rays are known and thoroughly documented.

Originally posted by harvib

LOL. DO they have a say? If they believe that these scanners are hazardous to their health do they have a say? If they believe that only cavity searches will insure their safety, do they have a choice? Their employers do not have a choice in the security procedures, so most certainly the pilots and cabin crews do not.

Are they hazardous to health? The jury still seems to be out on that one. Although I probably would not recommend sleeping in it.

I'm not talking about body cavity searches because that does go to far.

Of course the airlines and therefore the crew have a say in their own safety. They do not want you boarding drunk and they certainly do not want you boarding wearing semtex knickers.

Originally posted by harvib
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...

I didn't say they did.
What I was saying is if you take away their business, THEY will put pressure on the gov. to take out the scanners. And since we all know the gov. works for the corporations, we'll have a much better chance at getting rid of the scanners that way, than say, US protesting.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by mecheng]

reply to post by harvib


Just because they can be circumvented doesn't mean they shouldn't be installed, thats like saying theres no point in locks on our homes because they can be picked.

I dont see how they can force people to get pictures of thier body taken, when we know for sure, that these blasted machines dont even work well enough . They wouldnt have caught that CIA puppet with the underpants bomb, and I really cannot understand how the powers governing airflight can possibly condone this sheep hearding , knowing that the technology is not even adequate to the task , let alone the fact that the blasted things are lawsuits waiting to happen ! .

reply to post by BritofTexas

Are they hazardous to health? The jury still seems to be out on that one.

But in the mean time you and others will support using a device that may or may not be hazardous to your health.

Of course the airlines and therefore the crew have a say in their own safety. They do not want you boarding drunk and they certainly do not want you boarding wearing semtex knickers.

The CEOs of the airline companies don't have a say in the security procedures, what makes you think the cabin crew and pilots do. They are being forced to accept the protocols of a third party, regardless of its effectiveness or the health hazards it may create.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by SilentShadow

 

Exactly !

So much for tens of thousands of people in forums, decrying such invasions of privacy (idiotic scanners) !

Where are they when they're called to defend the 'freedumbs' they claim they'll defend ?

And ALL your protesting helped didn't it.

Where were they all? Right where YOU are. God friggen almightly, lets all RAGE at it.. They said they were going to do it, you lot had a ramble about it, they did it, and you still just ramble.

You were there making an effort or What?

Cry maor....

Hey Zoos Christ...

reply to post by Death_Kron

Just because they can be circumvented doesn't mean they shouldn't be installed, thats like saying theres no point in locks on our homes because they can be picked.

No it is like being forced to install a high tech lock by the Government, at great expense and possible health risk, that impedes our own ability to enter our house all the while there is a big glass window right next to the door.

We can spend all the money we want on treating our own citizens like cattle and criminals but if the "security"measures are easily circumvented then what is the point.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Just because they can be circumvented doesn't mean they shouldn't be installed, thats like saying theres no point in locks on our homes because they can be picked.

No it is like being forced to install a high tech lock by the Government, at great expense and possible health risk, that impedes our own ability to enter our house all the while there is a big glass window right next to the door.

We can spend all the money we want on treating our own citizens like cattle and criminals but if the "security"measures are easily circumvented then what is the point.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by harvib]

Your making a big deal and flapping your wings about nothing, its a simple body scan image thats in place to help prevent acts of terrorism, get over yourself.

Originally posted by harvib

But in the mean time you and others will support using a device that may or may not be hazardous to your health.

The CEOs of the airline companies don't have a say in the security procedures, what makes you think the cabin crew and pilots do. They are being forced to accept the protocols of a third party, regardless of its effectiveness or the health hazards it may create.

We all use a lot of things in everyday life that we do not yet know the long time health issues of.

Even though I'm more likely to get in a car accident on the way to the airport I'm also more likely to survive that and the scanner than a highjacking or a bomb.

Governments are paid by CEOs of corporations like the airlines and they do not want their expensive aircraft destroyed.

If they don't work why do they want them? They already have us bottlenecked at security.

Next time I go flying, I hope they do a body scan on me. When I go through, I'll start playing air-guitar, so it looks like I'm rockin out with my cock out.