It may be a separate issue, but the same sort of insane troll logic is employed as led to the scanner in the first place. If you can't fight stupidity with evidence then countering it with stupidity seems to be another reasonable approach.
Flight Ban for refusing X-Ray
- Thread starter Casdawer
- Start date
It may be a separate issue, but the same sort of insane troll logic is employed as led to the scanner in the first place. If you can't fight stupidity with evidence then countering it with stupidity seems to be another reasonable approach.
My point is that spending any money on security improvements actually fails to provide any greater protection for anyone. Unless all they do is spend their time in airports and on planes. It's a complete waste of money.
I'm also certain that the procedures will become mandatory, and more draconian security introduced. All it takes is for one clever terrorist to cause a minor incident and every moron in the country will be clamouring for increased security. The politicians will agree to it as it's an easy vote winner and then the terrorists win.
You fight terrorism by going about your daily life having accepted there is a risk you will be blown up. That's the price you pay in a free state. Unfortunately a lot of people don't realise that, and would happily sleep walk us into a police state.
The best thing we've done to counter terrorism was making sure people were back at the tube stations and bus stops in London the day after the bombings. That's how you deal with it. Statistically you're still more at risk from heart attacks, car accidents, freak occurrences etc than you are terrorism.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
No it isn't it is dangerous. It's the thin edge of the wedge that can be used to get more draconian laws through in the name of "security" and "safety"
Not to mention it causes complacency (see the reactions to Vanessa George because she'd passed all the checks), which in turn can reduce actual safety and security due to a lack of responsibility.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
No insults!, you're letting terrorists win if you let them get on with it and blow everone up. You have to let them know they can't **** with you and the only way to do that is to catch them.
It's got nothing to do with sleepwalking into a police state and everything to do with putting the filth of this world behind bars for a long time, stop reading the daily mail you tit.
If your kid started picking up small animals and torturing them, you wouldn't carry on with daily life accepting theres a chance he might become a serial killer. You'd do something about it.
Last edited:
So it is perfectly acceptable to you to allow terrorists to dicate our lives and the restrictions on them? Is that not exactly what they want?
A more apt comparison would be claiming everyone who used a fly swat is likely to be a serial killer, then submitting everyone to testing just in case...
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
How is that letting terrorists dictate our lives?
Do you think terrorists prime goal is to inconvienience us? No, the primary motive behind terrorism is extreme religious beliefs. And since, oh look, I'm still an atheist, I'm not living how the terrorists want me to.
I'm not scared of terrorists in everyday life, but you've got to be stupid to think letting them do what they want is the answer, you've got to take action.
So if you walked in on your son cutting the legs off a cat, you wouldn't do anything about it? Just say "If I do something I'm just doing what he wants me to"
Last edited:
You haven't noticed the massive lost of civil liberties and rights since 2001?
You're less free than you were, the exact nature of that freedom loss is beside the point.
Way to miss the point of what I was saying. The current approaches to trying to minimise terrorism don't target anything rational, just like targetting fly swat users as future serial killers. Your example had no real relevance to the approach taken for terrorism reduction.
Edit:
I'm not advocating letting terrorists do whatever they want, I'm advocating letting the other 99.999999999% of the population continue to lead their lives normally without dramatic increases in inconvenience and reductions in rights.
How many prosecutions has anti-terrorist stop and search led to again? What's the percentage hit rate?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
But complacency is OK, right? After all as long as people feel safe everything is OK!
Calling people names is not a good way of trying to get your point across. I'd rather my liberties be intact and risk getting blown up and be forced into a police state just to keep me "safe" from whatever "threat" the Government decides I need protecting from.
Apparently only a few people can actually see what is happening everybody else is like la la la I feel so much safer now...
Lol, Now would you like to have a ride on my unicorn, over the rainbow to steal he pot of gold on the otherside?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 638
- Location
- London
Sometimes putting the fear of death on the 'enemy' is a greater than death itself.
The terrorists must be raising their glasses about now with joy.
Erosion of liberty, privacy and freedom (some of the greatest achievements of this nation) is the biggest terrorism going on and all our self doing whilst a handful of private corps cash in off the fear branding it security. Without these fundamentals, were no better than animals.
I also ask where do you draw the line? What if they moved to football stadiums? Set one off successfully, will you be then ok to have closed football matches with the public only being able to watch the game on TV?
This nation needs to grow some balls and stop living in fear - the greatest aim of terrorism, not body count.
The terrorists must be raising their glasses about now with joy.
Erosion of liberty, privacy and freedom (some of the greatest achievements of this nation) is the biggest terrorism going on and all our self doing whilst a handful of private corps cash in off the fear branding it security. Without these fundamentals, were no better than animals.
I also ask where do you draw the line? What if they moved to football stadiums? Set one off successfully, will you be then ok to have closed football matches with the public only being able to watch the game on TV?
This nation needs to grow some balls and stop living in fear - the greatest aim of terrorism, not body count.
Last edited:
Then i think you'll find thousands of people refusing and cancelling their tickets and would probably lead to a few airports and airlines going bankrupt till they stopped the practice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
If only such a protest could be organised.
It doesn't need to be organised.
You will just find that thousands of people will refuse the search and just won't book flights from airports that require it.
Just like if McDonald decided to start putting a handful of broken glass in every burger it wouldn't need a protest to be organised for people stop going there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Well no because aside from the smoking ban (Which has nothing to do with terrorists) I can still do everything I could do in 2001.
The freedom to not be xrayed, actually, i still have the freedom to refuse and xray, but it's not beneficial to myself if I want to get on the flight.
I'm very marginally less free, but I don't miss having the freedom to not be xrayed if i'm a suspected terrorist, why should I care? Thats not complacency thats just me generally not caring if I may have to have an xray going through an airport.
You didn't get my point, if theres a problem, you do something about it.
Not really as random as you're making it out to be either, you have people working undercover to find terrorists, monitoring black markets and such. This is how many of the people plotting terrorist attacks are caught, that or stupidity.
You can't know someone is a terrorist by looking at them, but there are some telltale signs, body language and such which will allow you to pick up people with something to hide.
You can't tell who the other 99.99% of the population are against terrorists, not for sure. If we knew who they were, there wouldn't be any problem.
Lets say for example in an airport, if you stop 10000 suspected people in a few months, for a search, maybe stick a few in the xray, and out of them you find 1 bloke with a bomb in his shoe then you've saved a lot of lives and a lot of money by inconviencing a few people. That to me is worth it, I'd rather be late than some poor kid be left without a dad or something.
Out of those 10000 people you're likely to find a few drug mules as well, which is always a plus.
Last edited:
It doesn't need to be organised.
You will just find that thousands of people will refuse the search and just won't book flights from airports that require it.
Just like if McDonald decided to start putting a handful of broken glass in every burger it wouldn't need a protest to be organised for people stop going there.
Never going to happen.
I heard all this in 2003 when the US started using eye retina scan and finger printing at airports.
And the USA are bring in Biometrics scans soon but people will still go.
If you don't like it don't fly simples really.
Having some bloke stick his hand up your arse hole is slightly different to being scanned/eye scanned...
Whilst a lot may be annoyed about a scans they'll put up with it most people won't up up with hairy blokes fingering them twice a day.
Whilst a lot may be annoyed about a scans they'll put up with it most people won't up up with hairy blokes fingering them twice a day.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
It doesn't need to be organised.
Some form of protest against the erosion of our liberties in the name of "security" needs to take place to send the Government and any future Government a message that the people will not tolerate it any more.
However seeing as most people either don't have a clue about what is going on or don't care because they feel safe it will never happen. However deliberately protesting against flying (in a way that gets noticed that it is a protest) that causes a few airlines to suffer or even go bankrupt would soon get the Governments attention. After all lots of money flows to the Government from business.
Does not contradict. Religion = Infection
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
This to sum it up.
Why are people so scared of technological advancement?