If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
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.
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.
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.
Wha? Liquid explosives disguised as a sports drink. How much more REAL does it get than that?
Yes, security was inadequate before Sept 11, but last time I checked, toothpaste and Gatorade had nothing to do with 9/11.
But it did have to do with the recent threat, hence the ban.
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.....
Yes, they eliminated the risk.
The risk prevention measure needs to be appriopriate to the threat and in this case it isn't.
liquid explosives = threat. Banning liquids in carryon luggage seems to be the appropriate way to prevent someone from carrying on a liquid explosive.
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 agree with the principle of what you're saying, but in this case it's just not practical.
liquid explosives = threat. Banning liquids in carryon luggage seems to be the appropriate way to prevent someone from carrying on a liquid explosive.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Good post! With the new liquid rule. It's fine. But I want the whole can of pop instead of just a few sips. And like you said, a bottle of water would be nice too.
I have NEVER had trouble getting a whole bottle of water or an extra glass of pop...usually I don't even drink the water; I take it with me because the hotel rooms are usually so dry and I don't feel like getting a nose bleed. Stop whining.
For all the education and practice each of us undergoes, the achievment of mastery is ultimately the outcome of a personal quest for understanding.
OP...it's not even 10AM...get over it...there is no reason for the crap that is taken into a plane...terrorist threat or not...you buy a ticket; you ride the plane...there is NO REASON TO HAVE TOOTHPASTE ON BOARD. period. It is not a singles bar. If you breath is that bad get it taken care of by an oral surgeon. Be thankful they don't make you sit there with your hands folded. Not get over it and get some air.
For all the education and practice each of us undergoes, the achievment of mastery is ultimately the outcome of a personal quest for understanding.
Comment