Women banned from flight for refusing scan

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

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.

Since the whole idea of body scanners is to increase our safety and stop terrorism I don't think it matters if we are talking about a knife, gun or explosives.

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

No you are not, your over exagerrating to support your stance.

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

But I thought your problem was invasion of personal privacy? Now your contradicting yourself, surely installing cameras in everyones home would be a massive invasion of privacy?

As I have already said there is a massive difference between watching my every movement and sexual encounters in my own home than a simple image through a body scanner?

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.

Are you reading mine? Because I'm finding I'm repeating myself alot...

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

Incorrect. If you read what I wrote correctly you would realise I said to protect the system from misuse by its operators. Unless the operators happen to be CCNA & CCNP trained I would say it wouldbe pretty secure.

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

Let me ask you a question do you agree with pat-downs at the airport?

reply to post by Death_Kron


Couldn't agree with you more Kron... Lets see how many times the same mute points get brought up. I'm welling to guess around 1000.

You have to give the women props for standing up for their beliefs. But I'm saying this for the thousandth time until everyone gets it:

YOU CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT expect a right to privacy in the SAME LOCATION where maximum SECURITY is called for.

You just can't. The two don't go hand in hand. The two don't play well together and they never will until human nature changes. When will that happen? You tell me.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Sniffer dogs can smell expolosives a mile off. Strap them in plastic, even dunk them in coffee and the dogs still smell it.

I used to know a dog handler who worked for H.M. Customs at Manchester airport.

Yes sniffer dogs can smell explosives.

They can also smell the packet of biscuits you have in your pocket, women on menstrual cycles or even if you have just not washed your arse in a few days.


When I moved to the U.S.A. I had to pass a physical and obtain a copy of my (non-existent) criminal record. But you are right. It was an invasion of privacy for them to check if I had TB or was a sex offender.

When I look for work I have to pass a background test and drug screening. But you are right. It is an invasion of privacy for a prospective employer to find out whether or nor I am a crackhead who is going to rob them blind.

When I need a loan for a car they check my credit score. But you are right. It is an invasion of privacy to see if there is any chance I'd pay them back.

There are plenty of security checks in everyday life. Some with good cause, some maybe not.

Nobody is talking about putting these machines on street corners or outside your front door and making it mandatory to walk through before you leave the house.

You have the choice whether to fly or not, nobody is forcing you to board a plane.

reply to post by NoJoker13


Haha, thanks mate.

ImaginaryRelief is getting rather tedious.

[edit on 4/3/10 by Death_Kron]

personally I salute to these women for their decision and perhaps we also should take clues from it.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I haven't read the whole thread, only the first page but the majority of responses shock me.

Do you know what would be a pity? If either of the women was strapped to 50lb of semtex, wasn't scanned and blew an airliner full of 200+ people to jupiter....

Whats more important personal dignity or the health and safety of a full aircraft of people?

Edit: They denied for "religious" reasons. Would they be the same religious reasons that would allow them to destroy an aircraft with plastic explosives?

[edit on 4/3/10 by Death_Kron]

As in my earlier post, what is stoping that same woman from waiting until that same 200+ people are standing in the terminal in a "non-secure" area and detonating? Well I'll tell you, NOTHING. No millimeter scan, no dog going over the luggage, no security person searching her via pat down.

A full aircraft full of people pales in comparison to a full airport at Christmas.
Before you throw away your rights for a perceived sense of security, maybe consider what it took for you to have those rights in the first place.

..Ex

Originally posted by v3_exceed

As in my earlier post, what is stoping that same woman from waiting until that same 200+ people are standing in the terminal in a "non-secure" area and detonating? Well I'll tell you, NOTHING. No millimeter scan, no dog going over the luggage, no security person searching her via pat down.

I suppose by that logic then we should abandon all form of security everywhere throughout the world because someone, somewhere is going to find a way around it?

It's called damage limitation, look it up.

Does anyone know if children are being scanned too? Or what age scanning starts at? Just curious.

reply to post by BritofTexas


Well put, alot of basic security checks that imaginary probably takes for granted since I haven't seen him start a "No TB test" thread yet. Again great work!

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by NoJoker13

 

Haha, thanks mate.

ImaginaryRelief is getting rather tedious.

And the ad homs continue. It's interesting how you so readily resort to insults. Am i getting tedious or you're just having trouble?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Since the whole idea of body scanners is to increase our safety and stop terrorism I don't think it matters if we are talking about a knife, gun or explosives.

Agreed and yet i bring up the story of a woman smuggling a gun in her vagina after you said it didn't happen and yet you choose to ignore that. Why exactly did you do that?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
No you are not, your over exagerrating to support your stance.

No i just apply your argument, but i guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
But I thought your problem was invasion of personal privacy? Now your contradicting yourself, surely installing cameras in everyones home would be a massive invasion of privacy?

I am not suppporting the installion of cameras and it's very strange you try and turn that around. I was simply showing how your argument can be used to justify pretty much everything.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
As I have already said there is a massive difference between watching my every movement and sexual encounters in my own home than a simple image through a body scanner?

And again i say i apply your argument, that the cameras would save thousands of lives. This is your main argument, that the scanners save people. It's a very end's justify means viewpoint.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Are you reading mine? Because I'm finding I'm repeating myself alot...

You repeat yourself because you refuse to answer question and this sentence alone shows that. I gave yo uclear ways to improve security but you ignored all of them, evnen though you asked me to give you examples. You have said i am tedious but at least i reply to a persons arguments.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Incorrect. If you read what I wrote correctly you would realise I said to protect the system from misuse by its operators. Unless the operators happen to be CCNA & CCNP trained I would say it wouldbe pretty secure.

Well again we will have to agree to disagree because i have seen people who know little about systems bypass them. Not my work but it's interesting to see how people work around systems.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Let me ask you a question do you agree with pat-downs at the airport?

A pat down, done by an officer of the same sexual preference, with good cause? Yep. This is the limit i will accept, it is done with clothes on and they don't go grabbing your crotch (in my experience). Unless they have good intelligence of smuggling, then it's to the back room and full strip search. That however requires very good intelligence.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by v3_exceed


So from what I gather from your statement the scanners should be at the airport's front door? Otherwise I don't see where your going with that? Since all you seemed to prove is that the airports could have detonations inside and therefor need the scanners at the front doors as well.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Also kron you may wanna let imaginary know that the story he posted about a women hiding a gun in her vagina is about a woman on the street. Also not every woman would have this capability, I don't really have to go into the reproductive system do I? Also you pretty much already said it, they're trying to limit the problems, stopping them all would be impossible.

Also just because a gun is in someones vagina or anus why wouldn't the metal detectors you go through go off?

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

And the ad homs continue. It's interesting how you so readily resort to insults. Am i getting tedious or you're just having trouble

I wouldn't say calling someone boring is an insult, more rather a descriptive term. Maybe you should try and be thicker skinned

Agreed and yet i bring up the story of a woman smuggling a gun in her vagina after you said it didn't happen and yet you choose to ignore that. Why exactly did you do that?

Thanks for the story, I was surprised actually. But the scanners will prevent guns being smuggled onto a plane so surely if this even knocks a minute percentage of terrorism activity on a plane then its worthwhile?

No i just apply your argument, but i guess we will have to agree to disagree.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I am not suppporting the installion of cameras and it's very strange you try and turn that around. I was simply showing how your argument can be used to justify pretty much everything.

I'll show you how your argument can be turned against you in a minute.

And again i say i apply your argument, that the cameras would save thousands of lives. This is your main argument, that the scanners save people. It's a very end's justify means viewpoint

They would also invade personal privacy to a much greater degree than a simple body scan.

Well again we will have to agree to disagree because i have seen people who know little about systems bypass them. Not my work but it's interesting to see how people work around systems.

Then the system isn't secured very well.

A pat down, done by an officer of the same sexual preference, with good cause? Yep. This is the limit i will accept, it is done with clothes on and they don't go grabbing your crotch (in my experience). Unless they have good intelligence of smuggling, then it's to the back room and full strip search. That however requires very good intelligence.

Please could you explain how this isn't an invasion of your personal privacy but a simple scanner image is? I'd love to hear how you don't have a problem with that, surely someone touching you is more invasive than a photograph?

At this point your argument falls to pieces.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Also kron you may wanna let imaginary know that the story he posted about a women hiding a gun in her vagina is about a woman on the street. Also not every woman would have this capability, I don't really have to go into the reproductive system do I? Also you pretty much already said it, they're trying to limit the problems, stopping them all would be impossible.

I didn't know that about the story so thanks for bringing it to my attention, kind of makes imaginarys reply redundant.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Also the fact that he'd rather be fondled then body scanned.... Kinda gives me the creeps!

reply to post by Death_Kron


Ya I think what imaginary meant to say was that these women first lined their vaginas with lead. Then they concealed the gun in their vagina so they could make it through the metal detectors undetected! Watch out I smelll another made for TV movie!

Originally posted by SilentShadow


And so it begins...

I personally would feel rather violated going through these machines. It is a pity that these women took a stand and in cost them their flight, however, if more people refused then they would need to look at the system again.

I just wonder whether the extra 'security' that we have gained has been proportionate to the loss of our civil liberties.

au.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Man or Women, as long as they are Muslim, they need to be 100% full body scanned.
What if they are carrying bombs with them??
You rather be safe than sorry.

what if, and no offence to the offended, the scan picked up a transexual who hadnt had the chop, would she be stripped to prove that shes a woman ?

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by v3_exceed

As in my earlier post, what is stoping that same woman from waiting until that same 200+ people are standing in the terminal in a "non-secure" area and detonating? Well I'll tell you, NOTHING. No millimeter scan, no dog going over the luggage, no security person searching her via pat down.

I suppose by that logic then we should abandon all form of security everywhere throughout the world because someone, somewhere is going to find a way around it?

It's called damage limitation, look it up.

That is hardly an intelligent retort. A person blowing themselves up in a crowded airport prior to boarding is not "damage limitation". Two or three planes boarding or disembarking equals more people than a single plane.

By your logic we should all all millimeter scanners outside of our houses and checkpoints on every block. Damage limitation indeed.

Nowhere did I say we needed to abandon security, but to approach it with an attitude of least security with the largest violation of a person is hardly an intelligent way to handle it. Perhaps you own shares in these companies, as I can see no other motivation for such senseless drivel.

..Ex