Because it is their plane and not yours?Originally Posted by Mikey82
I hate the fact that these terrorists are controlling our lives!
why the **** can't I take a bottle of gatorade on the plane? That's bull****!
It is not a right Mikey. People do not have a right to do whatever they want to do on public transportation.
They also didn't have to sit on the runway in Charlotte for two hours....
I don't have a problem with the concept either- it's the implementation. For example. I agree that no one except federal marshals should have firearms in the cabin of an aircraft for obvious reasons. There is a clear, credible threat from firearms.
But, even if they are priviledges, they shouldn't take them away unless there is a clear, credible threat and I don't think that's been established. This is a knee-jerk reaction that was done without the necessary research and investigation.
It's a preventative measure. There could still be sleeper cells out there that are backups - who knows? Better to eliminate the possibility than to take the risk.
Inconvenience or death? I'll take inconvenience.
i tell you what
since we have arabs from pakistan that want to kill civilians on planes
and we have other arabs in lebanon that will put their children up to die as human shields
why not pack those lebanese civilians onto planes and let the pakistanis blow them up?
We Die For Allah Airlines
One set of rules for all in the beloved community
well the only way to eliminate any possibility is to eliminate commercial air travel altogether. As long as there are planes in the sky, the possibility of a terror attack on a plane exists.
Should we eliminate the possibility of people speeding by putting governors in cars that limit them to 55 mph? Should we eliminate the possibility of alcohol abuse by just eliminating alcohol?
All I'm saying is that the actual risk should be established before things are banned as a knee-jerk reaction. Again, terrorism and liquid explosives weren't invented yesterday and so far there hasn't been a problem. It's an extreme reaction to a situation that, while scary, did not actually lead to any deaths or injuries.
Inconvenience and death aren't the only two choices. And even if they were, who the **** are these ****ing terrorists to force us to make a choice?
WOW!
I think that flying planes into the WTC firmly established the risk of inadequate security measures.
You will never eliminate risk entirely. Hell, the plane could drop out of the sky due to mechanical failure. But you know what? The same people that are complaining about extreme reactions, inconvenience, and flying "rights" would be the first ones to scream and yell when something did happen if the government didn't do anything to try to prevent it. I'd rather that they err on the side of caution than appease people who disagree solely for the sake of disagreeing.
Your mind is made up, and that's fine. Next time you fly, you ***** and complain when your toothpaste and Gatorade is confiscated by TSA. While you're getting examined from the inside out, the rest of us will be strolling through security.
21 of 21 airport penetration tests failed to detect bomb making components smuggled by undercover officers onto planes in recent tests
a very bushian like failure rate
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...6&f=00&fg=copy
What do you do to fix it?
All the more reason to ban carry-on luggage.
No, we would be screaming that the government was too busy banning Gatorade to to take care of whatever the REAL cause of the problem was.
Yes, security was inadequate before Sept 11, but last time I checked, toothpaste and Gatorade had nothing to do with 9/11.
And you're forgetting a VERY important factor. Terrorism works on the element of surprise, and after the first time, it's not a surprise. Proof of this is the plane that went down over PA. On the first 3 flights, no one on the plane fought the terrorists because no one ever dreamed that it was a suicide mission. Once word got out, the passengers fought back and brought the flight down. Within an hour after the first hijacking with boxcutters, boxcutters were no longer a serious threat because 4 terrorists armed with boxcutters are no match for 200 other passengers who are now willing to fight back. Of course, TSA banned them anyway.....
The risk prevention measure needs to be appriopriate to the threat and in this case it isn't.
Regardless of how small and insignificant the change is- regardless if it's only a "convenience" issue- the terrorists are changing how we do things and we shouldn't stand for it.
better training and detection equipment.
and while you're at it, ban firearms, cigarettes, automobiles, power tools, alcohol and anything else that has put someone at risk. Ever.
Wha? Liquid explosives disguised as a sports drink. How much more REAL does it get than that?
But it did have to do with the recent threat, hence the ban.Yes, security was inadequate before Sept 11, but last time I checked, toothpaste and Gatorade had nothing to do with 9/11.
Yes, they eliminated the risk.And you're forgetting a VERY important factor. Terrorism works on the element of surprise, and after the first time, it's not a surprise. Proof of this is the plane that went down over PA. On the first 3 flights, no one on the plane fought the terrorists because no one ever dreamed that it was a suicide mission. Once word got out, the passengers fought back and brought the flight down. Within an hour after the first hijacking with boxcutters, boxcutters were no longer a serious threat because 4 terrorists armed with boxcutters are no match for 200 other passengers who are now willing to fight back. Of course, TSA banned them anyway.....
liquid explosives = threat. Banning liquids in carryon luggage seems to be the appropriate way to prevent someone from carrying on a liquid explosive.The risk prevention measure needs to be appriopriate to the threat and in this case it isn't.
I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but in this case it's just not practical.Regardless of how small and insignificant the change is- regardless if it's only a "convenience" issue- the terrorists are changing how we do things and we shouldn't stand for it.
I have the solution...actually, it's Kasey Kasem that has the solution:
Keep your feet on the ground...and keep reachin' for the stars!
this is incredibly short-sighted. What are the chances that someone will blow up your plane with liquid explosives versus, say, getting in an accident and dying on your way home from work? But no one is clamoring to ban cars.
There are plenty of things in society that pose much higher risks than liquids on airplanes, but they aren't banned.
Nobody thought sneakers were a threat either until a terrorist tried to light the fuse on his Reebocks over the Atlantic in 2001.
Now everyone removes their shoes.
How about trying to stop stuff before it happens then trying to play catch up all the time?
OP- just drive everywhere. Enough whining.
The two aren't related.
Are you really that pissed off about this, or do you just like to make circular, illogical arguments? Either way, it's not going to change. Check your lip gloss in your bag and get on with life.
And lets all chip in ans buy Val a bottle of Nexus for Christmas!
Posting Permissions
