Women banned from flight for refusing scan

well i am a slightly bigger girl and those scanners show everything and trust me nobody wants to see that. i think that if somebody want to refuse the full body scan they should have an opt out policy and just search like you would before these scanners came out. if the tsa people want to get really pissy about it just go to a different airport that doesn't have scanners yet.

Originally posted by ThePrettyTruth
Who are you to even think you have any idea of what God intended? Clearly he DID intend for us to be in the sky because, guess what, WE ARE! Just the simple idea that we are in the sky means that God intended it.

It's like I mention the word "god", and EVERYBODY misses the point I laid out. Again, just like your buddy above, thanks for chicken picking my post, and missing my actual point.

Ok, here's another "god" example, by your logical stand point: "God" intended us to make guns. So since we made them, god intended us to have them, so therefore, guns shouldn't be regulated, and people can use them whenever, or wherever they like.

Again, thanks for purposefully missing my point.

You must not have seen the pictures of your innocent 'outline scan' - it shows EVERYTHING. Nipples, your junk- everything. Those of us who object DO have something to hide- the most private thing we own - our naked bodies.

Oh wait, I have another "god" example!

How do you know what god intended with these body scanners? The simple fact that we have them, shows that he intended us to use them.



[edit on 4-3-2010 by TravisT]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
You can't compare mandatory vaginal or anal searches to these machines, theres a gulf of a difference between the two and you know it. I understand the pont your making; where do you draw the line?

Of course they don't compare but you missed the point.

A terrorist will use whatever means necessary to bring their explosives on board. If they know are going to be scanned, they will simply carry the explosives inside their body cavities, it's not as if their not willing to endure a bit of discomfort before they meet their maker - therefore rendering the scanners obsolete as soon as they are deployed.

Thus the scanners have saved nobody, but they have infringed on everybody's privacy and will continue to do so. Perhaps they will slow down small time drug smugglers, gold & diamond smugglers, money launderers and tax evaders - but the premise they are being deployed for "Terrorism" is a lie and terrorism will continue at the same level it would have been without them. It is about control of you and your labors.

So what have you got when every airport has these scanners fully deployed? Governments who have taken more individual privacy away by essentially strip searching everyone who passes. All that is left after that is DNA sampling, brain scans & body cavity search’s – essentially government sanctioned rape.

So, you think because a few planes get blown up every ten years or so, that the government should be able to rape via a body cavity search, your wives, daughters, sons etc in order to protect you from terrorist?

Seems to me I’m terrorized every time I have to get on a plane now, worried about whether they are going to give me a secondary search and steal my hygiene products, so I have to buy more when I get to where I’m going.

I fear the government far more than Bin Laden or any other so called terrorist. Bin laden said I’ll leave you alone if you get out of my county and quit killing my people. Who’s really the terrorist here?



[edit on 4-3-2010 by verylowfrequency]

my father went through one of those scanners recently and it clearly showed the stints in his heart and the metal screw in his knee from a childhood injury. if it can see those it will show your fat, and private areas that you don't even want to see.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by bloody_hands_of_fate]

reply to post by Vitchilo


Airplanes aren't "free" movement and to think so is ludacris. Walking, Jogging, and running are considered forms of "free" movement. I mean you do pay for a plane ticket right? You do have to follow the rules of the airline right? You also can be rejected from flying for just about anything. If your looking for "free" movement I suggest you move to new hampshire and walk around in the woods, doesn't get much more free then that.

reply to post by bloody_hands_of_fate


Well thanks for clarifying that since many here believe that the scanners cannot see your insides! When infact some of the machines can... if not all of them.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

Ground casualties in the terminal could be pretty high when the bad guy gets busted in the scan.

Then again, the planes themselves are more valuable to these airlines than a few more bystanders buffeting the shockwave in the terminal, in addition to preventing unwanted drywall damage.

I would think (best guess) the odds of the plane crashing are so much higher than a terror attack in the first place, that this money could have been better spent on accident prevention.

At least we know the cost of flying won't be going down anytime soon.

A thought... would it be an offense to have a t shirt that had 'F OFF' or 'Stop staring at my duck' written on an undergarment in tinfoil or metallic paint of some sort or would that buy you a first class ticket to cavity search island?

jus wondrin...

reply to post by TravisT

So again, you're wrong, cause nobody is enslaving these airline workers, telling them they have no choice.

Wrong about what exactly? The airline employees don't have a choice if they wish to remain employed. As for the "choice" to remain employed that is for them to make but some of you seem to think that because a person has choices that they are free. However even a slave has choices. That is not freedom.

Again, I never said you can't pack up and leave to where you want to go. But if you want the luxury of getting there quicker, then you have to bow down to the "evil Government plans at world domination", through the use of body scanners at the airport. By all means, travel to anyplace in the world, through another form of transportation, no skin of my back. You don't have to try and twist my very idea around, to try and get your selfish point across.

Try to calm down. It is not a selfish point I am making. I am trying to convince you that you have rights that you believe are retained by the Government. Again choice is not synonymous with freedom or with rights. You and others falsely believe that since the Government hasn't specific informed you of a "right to travel" that you then don't have such a right. This is not the case. That right is retain by the people.

So you're saying, that you have the right to get totally blasted, get in a car, and potentially kill someone on the road, just because you feel it's your "right" to travel? Again, just like planes, cars are a privileges/luxuries. If you don't bide by the laws and regulations, then you get those taken away, easy as that!

In a free society all rights are retained by the people. The only limitation on rights is when it is used to infringe on another's or by consent. The justification is made for police patrol that a person driving recklessly is infringing on a person right to life.

In the US we are fighting a war in the name of "freedom". Why then are we continually moving away from freedom And why are our citizens so happy to do so?

No, what's hard to understand, is that you think everybody works in an orderly fashion, and that there is no wrong in this world, and nobody messes up, or gets out of line. Wake the F' up, buddy! Things need to be regulated, because humans tend to be stupid, and act out of line.

Fair enough. However there have been more deaths in buildings then on airlines, by far. Don't we need a security checkpoint to the entrance of every building. At what point are people going to accept that life is fragile and that if someone wants to end our life that there isn't much protection that can be offered. If we fail to understand that point we are bound to live half our lives waiting in line to be cleared through a checkpoint. I would rather take my chances then live such a dismal life...

Again, if you don't want to get a body scanned if asked, then be prepared to get stripped of the luxury of flight. Nobody is "forcing" you, like you keep trying to make it sound. If you have a choice, then there really isn't an actual "force", it just so happens, that you just don't like the outcome of those choices. Sorry, I can't help you there.

You know. If I came to you and stated I had the authority to "scan" you in order to patron a business I had no ownership in would you question my jurisdiction? Would you ask me what gives me such authority? If I told you it was for your protection and you had a choice not to patron said business would you accept that as fact? Does it not bother you at all that what is being done is not lawfull under civil law? The less free a society becomes the more travel is regulated in order to maintain control of the slave populous. Shouldn't we at least take the time to ask a few questions????

Originally posted by Vitchilo
BS. ``The right to fly on an airplane`` is IN FACT, A RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY WHEREVER THE HELL I WANT.

Except you do not have that so called "right"

You do not have the right to move freely on land I own, you have no right to move freely in peoples place of work, you do not have the right to move freely on much DOD land etc etc. So you actually do not have any right to move freely wherever you want to!

reply to post by BritofTexas

So following your logic we all should be able to fly for free because having to hand over a big chunk of cash is just government control.

LOL. We have a right to bare arms. Agreed? Because you believe we have the right to bare arms does that mean you are demanding that you are given firearms for free. Of course not! And neither am I. However I am opposed to institutions that are formed to serve the public acting unlawfully and without lawful jurisdiction or authority. Why is that so offensive?

reply to post by Wildbob77


I am not a Muslim...true blue Aussie pagan and I do object to these body scanners.

I would feel violated having to do this.

I would not expect many of the people in this forum to have the intellectual capacity to understand just how traumatic and unnerving this can be for some people.

If you have ever been sexually assaulted you might have an inkling of what I am going on about.


take care all
res

Sorry, given today's state of affairs and terrorist activity is a constant threat anymore, If you want to fly safely then submit to the searches, we cannot judge books by their respective covers, we must take the cover off.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


I'm not missing the point at all, its ridiculous to say terrorists will bypass these scanners and smuggle explosives via other methods so theres no point in having them, what sort of logic is that?

These scanners will not only detect explosives but also weapons such as ceramic knifes or porcelain pistols, weapons that would more than likely go previously un-noticed.

It's also ridiculous to say that the government is only installing the scanners for control purposes! How do you think the government is going to benefit from seeing people naked?

It's a simple body scan image for gods sake, its not even picture quality. If you can't forsake a moment of embarassment in order for a more safer atmosphere then more fool you...

reply to post by resistancia


But I bet you would happily undergo a pat down at the airport? Strange that some people find an image more "invasive" than being physically touched, I would of thought someone who had been sexually abused would be more likely to refuse the physical search...

reply to post by rcwj1975


I am never going to see your rational that by choosing to use a private airline I am choosing to ceed my privacy.

The airlines are just as much victims of this invasive nonsense as passengers are and perhaps maybe even more as they get to inherit a bunch of pissed off customers that TSA has already bent-over with sheer incompetence and utter intrusiveness.

And as I previously stated your example of buying your own planes (page 2 of this thread) is fantasticly ridiculous. Citizens who dislike traffic laws should buy their own highways? Citizens who refuse to go through the "back-scatter microwaves" at the court house should buy their own court if they have to appear in court?

YOU MAKE ZERO SENSE. Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. You are lucky that there are a few of us citizens remaining who recognize the vital importance of privacy and that will hopefully prevail in the end.

Originally posted by waycoolsnoopy
And as I previously stated your example of buying your own planes (page 2 of this thread) is fantasticly ridiculous

I'll tell you what is fantasticly ridiculous, the fact that some people think they are exempt from security protocols like the rest of us have to go through.

reply to post by Death_Kron

I'll tell you what is fantasticly ridiculous, the fact that some people think they are exempt from security protocols like the rest of us have to go through.

you know I was kind of done with this thread. I've begun to repeat myself and so have those on the opposite side of the debate. However your view fascinates me.

You believe that the US Government had a part in 9/11. You believe they were participants in the murder of airline passengers. Despite that viewpoint you are in favor of that same Government being in charge of airline passenger's "protection".



[edit on 5-3-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib


Nothing stranger than folk eh?

I'm done with this thread aswell to be honest, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Hmmm. I was kind of interested in how you could have such a contradictory view point but oh well. Take care.