Women banned from flight for refusing scan

reply to post by Yissachar1


Thats the funniest post I've read in a while

Originally posted by habfan1968

Originally posted by SilentShadow

Did you forget that BOATS still exist? You do have a right to go about freely if you choose to but, flying in a plane is not a right. These scanners are an option to the companies using them at this point but it seems they are being chosen by many already. You can choose to fly somewhere but it's choice. If you don't like the security in place at your local airport then you can choose other ways to get around, that is your right.

OKAY sometimes it hurts to read.
Boats?
Rights?

If you are serious in believing that you wont be passing thru a scanner to ride a boat SOON, then you really are, along with all the others, MISSING THE POINT.
These will be pushed on you, theyre for sale, fear is being used to generate sales, and gain control over you.
The sales will stop at airports?
AMAZING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really really amazing.
God Bless you and good luck.
ALL OF YOU.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Yissachar1

 

Thats the funniest post I've read in a while

Many will laugh at the shackles put on others, and do nothing about it.
Until one day, when the shackles are put around their own ankles, and the necks of their loved ones,
then they will cry out.
But only the bound and gagged will hear their cries.

Is it not fairly ironic to say we implement these safety and security measures to protect ourselves from a/an supposed/accused threat of individual or group terrorism or violence, and by those implements do we find sustained security?

I dispense, that we do not, we find only immediate relief in mind that we are secure in our persons and faculties from undue harm. In reality we are all ways in a state of the unexpected actions of others. The only logical progression for the security/safety measures to follow would me infinite proliferation and escalation, to a probable point of either acceptance or refusal outright. Being merely indifferent to either argument, whether pro or con, in regards to security measures, is simply negligent to our freedoms and liberties. The usurpation's of the past 100 years in our country as well as abroad have reflected many atrocities of mind and action throughout history.

At what point will we stop arguing with those who ignore the facts and continue to suppress logical conversation by repeating their flawed esoteric dogmas of selfishness, in regards to both current conversations and historical truths. For that is primarily the case, selfishness, in a more metaphorical than literal sense. We as human beings can be selfish for personal security of ourselves and those we care about more so then than the long-term effects on society and the future our words and actions have. It would be negligent to allow one extreme to rule over another.

In this case either allowing a totally secure environment where any security/safety measures are accepted or an environment completely lacking in security. At best we must find a mutually beneficial environment for freedoms and safety, rather then imposed or implied safety by security measures regardless of freedoms.

As an aside we most assuredly do have the right and enumerated rights to express,speak, petition and demand any and all requests to any party in this country, the implied and literal translation of our founding fathers intents while clear and concise have been misconstrued to benefit a few while lacking protection of the whole. But as i had stated previously it seems to be the human condition, of selfishness, to benefit the few as opposed the whole.

What sayest thou?

(As an after thought would it not be equally as fair, as those who have posted in favor of these measures have stated, to simply choose not to fly. I posture that it would be just as equally fair that if they do not feel safe without these new security measures then by not implementing them those who would require the new measures to feel "safe" have the option not to fly, thereby proving the point that neither extreme is correct or incorrect, but merely at odds with our own selfishness.)

[edit on 4-3-2010 by LurkingSleipner]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

If you think we shouldn't have cavity searches then how do we combat the possibility of someone smuggling weapons or explosives onto a plane please explain

As I have already mentioned numerous times, body scanners and the methods currently in place are a great compromise between nothing and cavity searches.

Once again, many things can be designed to protect me, including cameras in my own home. So why don't you accept cameras in your own home? I am willing to bet you'd get angry about that. So again i'm simply reversing your argument.

Once again its all about drawing a line as I have already said, comparing installing a camera in every single persons home to body scanners is ridiculous!

You liken someone watching my every move, my intimate moments with my girlfriend, me washing in the shower etc to walking through a body scanner??? Don't be ridiculous!

Use the technology we always have, increase the number of sniffer dogs (no machine can currently compare the the nose of a sniffer dog) and hope nothing happens. Oh and your scanners won't prevent a damn thing because once again people can insert explosives within themselves so when i talk about hope we are on equal ground.

I've already mentioned there are ways around everything, I believe we should do as much as we can without going over the top. Body scanners in my opinions are not over the top, I might add that I probably would feel a little uncomfortable walking through one myself but as someone has already mentioned on balance its a small price of embarassment compared to the protection aspect.

Really? I don't mean to be rude but i worked in computer security for a number of years, it would be easy enough to bypass it with a little knowledge.

I work in IT/Telecoms aswell so I'm sure you will agree that it would be possible to secure the machines enough to prevent the operators from misusing them.

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Yissachar1

 

Thats the funniest post I've read in a while

Many will laugh at the shackles put on others, and do nothing about it.
Until one day, when the shackles are put around their own ankles, and the necks of their loved ones,
then they will cry out.
But only the bound and gagged will hear their cries.

Hardly a shackle walking through a body scanner is it?

Maybe if we strip searched, anal and vagina examined every passenger I would agree.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Your freedom and that of others is being protected by preventing terrorists smuggle explosives or weapons onto a plane. Simple.

I just wanted to requote this because it is one of the most superb examples of doublethink i have seen on ATS. It is in support of the scanners.


This quote basicaly says that we must surrender our freedoms and privacy to protect our freedoms and privacy.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Your freedom and that of others is being protected by preventing terrorists smuggle explosives or weapons onto a plane. Simple.

I just wanted to requote this because it is one of the most superb examples of doublethink i have seen on ATS. It is in support of the scanners.


This quote basicaly says that we must surrender our freedoms and privacy to protect our freedoms and privacy.

I suppose you would be correct if you classed a 3D image of yourself a breach of your privacy.

Lets allow terrorists to walk through airports with explosives attached to them because people like you don't like the fact that as a preventative measure you are required to walk through a body scanner, get this, for your own safety!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Then it's pretty simple... don't fly. Were you also someone that wanted safer airports?

Or I got a better one buy your own plane.

Then you can keep yourself to... well yourself.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
As I have already mentioned numerous times, body scanners and the methods currently in place are a great compromise between nothing and cavity searches.

You talk of compromise but you miss the obvious. Body cavities are more easily used for terrible terrorist actions than simply strapping something to your leg, especially now the terrorists now these scanners exist.

You keep talking about protecting people but you draw the line at cavity searches, even though hundreds could die and you use that exact argument to justify your scanners. Lol it's really sad you can't see the logical fallacy you are promoting.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Once again its all about drawing a line as I have already said, comparing installing a camera in every single persons home to body scanners is ridiculous!

You liken someone watching my every move, my intimate moments with my girlfriend, me washing in the shower etc to walking through a body scanner??? Don't be ridiculous!

No i compare your justification. You say that invasion of privacy is fine as long as it protects people, you have said that if it saves 200 lives then it's worth it. Well a camera in every home would saves thousands. Forget just yourself, if it were in every home it would save so many people. I am simply applying your logic.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

I've already mentioned there are ways around everything, I believe we should do as much as we can without going over the top. Body scanners in my opinions are not over the top, I might add that I probably would feel a little uncomfortable walking through one myself but as someone has already mentioned on balance its a small price of embarassment compared to the protection aspect.

The protection aspect is non existant though because expolsives can simply be inserted in a person as easily as they can be worn. The scanners therefore provide no extra protection unless you also perform cavity scans. The fact you don't understand that is amazing so i will try and simplify it for you.

1. Bodyscanners stop people strapping things to themselves.

2. Instead they can insert devices within themselves.

3. If we use body scanners they will just use the second option.

4. Therefore we must use both methods to actually prevent terrorism, or of course we can accept that bad things happen and not use either. We can accept that people die and terrorists attack. Speaking as someone who has faced his death i can say, without being flippant that i would happily sacrifice my life to keep our freedoms.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

I work in IT/Telecoms aswell so I'm sure you will agree that it would be possible to secure the machines enough to prevent the operators from misusing them.

No i really wouldn't agree. Every system like that can be messed with. If this were not the case then black hat hackers would be out of business pretty quickly.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I suppose you would be correct if you classed a 3D image of yourself a breach of your privacy.

Lets allow terrorists to walk through airports with explosives attached to them because people like you don't like the fact that as a preventative measure you are required to walk through a body scanner, get this, for your own safety!

Sniffer dogs can smell expolosives a mile off. Strap them in plastic, even dunk them in coffee and the dogs still smell it.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
Then it's pretty simple... don't fly. Were you also someone that wanted safer airports?

No i wasn't actually, i was fine with the airports even after 9/11 because i realise that it's pretty much impossible to protect us and that bad things happen sometimes. I also realise the odds of being hurt in an airline terror attack are miniscule. Did you check the figures i linked? You can be struck dead by lightning 10 times with the same odds, in fact it's more than that. You people are pathetically scared after consuming to much news media and not checking the facts.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by NoJoker13

Or I got a better one buy your own plane.

Then you can keep yourself to... well yourself.

I don't have the money so how exactly am i to do such a thing? What a very stupid argument.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by silo13


Why do you get nausiated that flying isn't a right it's a privledge? Man has walked or ran for well over 10,000 years... last time I checked you don't "need" to fly. If you do "need" to fly then you most obey by the rules. Buy your own plane, then it will be your "right" to not have people pass through a scanner before the flight.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You talk of compromise but you miss the obvious. Body cavities are more easily used for terrible terrorist actions than simply strapping something to your leg, especially now the terrorists now these scanners exist.

You can't hide a gun or a knife in your vagina or anus...

No i compare your justification. You say that invasion of privacy is fine as long as it protects people, you have said that if it saves 200 lives then it's worth it. Well a camera in every home would saves thousands. Forget just yourself, if it were in every home it would save so many people. I am simply applying your logic

You are not simplying applying my logic, your taking the principle and greatly over exaggerating it in an attempt to defend your stance.

I'll ask you again; how can you liken someone watching my every move, intimate or sexual activities with my partner and me washing in the shower to a simple 3CGI image?

The protection aspect is non existant though because expolsives can simply be inserted in a person as easily as they can be worn.

So what do you think should be done about that then?

No i really wouldn't agree. Every system like that can be messed with. If this were not the case then black hat hackers would be out of business pretty quickly.

Any IT system can be broken into with enough time and effort, even the computers of the NSA & MI5...

Sniffer dogs can smell expolosives a mile off. Strap them in plastic, even dunk them in coffee and the dogs still smell it

Can't smell plastic knifes though...

[edit on 4/3/10 by Death_Kron]

reply to post by rcwj1975


The airlines have gotten billions in bailout dollars, they aren't private companies anymore.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


It's clearly only a stupid arguement because I disagree with you. How isn't your arguement stupid? Your basing your entire stance on the fact that getting struck by lightning 10 times would happen before you got in a plane crash? I mean thats seriously all you got? Well I'll tell you the problem with that way of thinking, 1. lightning strikes randomly 2. Terrorist Airplane hi-jackings are intentional 3. Why wouldn't you try to stop intentional violence??? Your whole arguement stands on the fact that the probability is that you won't be on that plane? Now thats pathetic and a very pathetic way to look at the idea, since what your saying you wouldn't condowne use of this machine even if it did save lives? Correct? Also theres nothing to fear, life inevitable leads to death but if a shortened life could be prevented, even if the chances are slim, I'm all for it and any human that isn't is in my eyes against Humanity. You say you don't have the cash to buy a plane, I say to bad then, you wanna ride on someone elses bus you ride by their rules. Debate with you done clearly your against progress and against saving lives at the stake of showing some skin.

IF she had something malicious on her? Then what.

She should've went through the scan, i would've gone through the scan myself.

I got nothing to hide

She brought the bs upon herself

reply to post by rcwj1975


I just have a question, because I thought it was like an xray. It ONLY shows whats under the clothes? Because in my opinion this would only cause more people that are trying to carry drugs on the plane to (shutter) insert them.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

You can't hide a gun or a knife in your vagina or anus...

You are joking right? We were talking about explosives if you recall and now you're trying to change it. However you understand you can fit a gun or knife inside a vagina. In fact how about i give you a news story.

dlisted.blogspot.com...

However, Vickii isn't as dumb as we think she is. She managed to hide a loaded gun in her vagina. Officers didn't suspect a thing, even though she went through pat down.

You have now just proven how utterly ignorant you are in regards to physical security. Lol i should mention that lockpicking, safe cracking and alarm systems are a hobby of mine (as i have mentioned before on this website) and i have a number of friends in the security industry.

Basically you have no clue how easy it is to smuggle stuff.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
You are not simplying applying my logic, your taking the principle and greatly over exaggerating it in an attempt to defend your stance.

No i am directly applying your argument. You say it can save hundreds of lives, i supply you with an idea that can save thousands of lives. Not only that but i clearly show you that your supoport of a technology is inferior to my support of cavity searches as cavity smuggling is a much greater danger.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I'll ask you again; how can you liken someone watching my every move, intimate or sexual activities with my partner and me washing in the shower to a simple 3CGI image?

And i will reply by saying that your ideas may possibly save a hundred people (although in truth it will save no one as terrorists will simply insert the explosives within themselves) whereas my proposal would save thousands of people. I would say further that your ideas are predicated upon the belief that we shoudl sacrifice freedom for safety, i am simply folloinwg your train of thought. Further i will say that you are being short sighted and that the curtailing of freedoms always starts slowly.

Imagine even 10 years ago trying to implement these scanners, there would have been uproar.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

So what do you think should be done about that then?

Are you reading my posts? Because i already said. Train mor sniffer dogs as they are far more sensitive than any machine. After that we just hope for the best. I once again would remind you of the odds of airbourne terror. You can be struck by lightning 10 times and still you are less likely to die in a terror attack.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Any IT system can be broken into with enough time and effort, even the computers of the NSA & MI5...

And therefore the system can be abused and your original point about the security of it is moot.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Can't smell plastic knifes though...

Nope they can't and scanners can't pick up plastic knives inside a woman vagina, nor can they pick up guns inside a womans vagina and lets remember that the flight attendants give you plastic knives Lets also remember that after 9/11 people will no longer sit in their seats when confronted by a man with a knife.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

The moral of the story is, SHE SHOULD HAVE WENT THROUGH THE DAMNED SCANNER!

What is so difficult for brick of brains to understand? Was she trying to get famous/ file a lawsuit

Who the heck knows what was up her sleeve.

I had enough of these muslims claiming special "Treatment" You are the same like everyone else

Don't like it, You can go back to haji

Whether people like them or not, full body scanners are a good idea and are going to stay right where they are, as several people have pointed out already, if you don't like it, you had better find another way to travel.

I honestly don't have a problem going through one if it helps to make sure I don't get blown up.