Kilgore Trout

Of course. I believe the failures in the security system pointed out by this event will be examined. I hope like crazy they are examined, and that it won't just be business as usual, as it may be a precursor to a new terror offensive. I also believe the second incident where another Nigerian man "became ill" in the lav for an hour or so may have been a check of reaction times and general public mood. Don't know, just speculation.

Please don't misunderstand my intentions here- I am not an apologist for terrorists, or crummy, innefective security precautions. I am concerned that we may be falling into a trap set by AQ whereby our reaction to events like this causes even further support for their cause. We can not afford to lose the trust of the majority of the world's muslims that our country will do the right things in difficult times.

We can not allow AQ to morally bankrupt us.

LeftWing

I already said it, Richard Reid. Man, this is getting circular. Please read at least some of the thread.

LeftWing

..........

USMCFLYR

[QUOTE]
If the standard was 40% - yes - I would take 60%.
Always strive for 100% - no argument there.
But until 100% is ready for prime time as you say are you giving up the 60%?
Good come back btw - but flawed in this context.

I agree - and have said this numerous times on this thread alone. *Profiling* is a broad strategy encompassing many different tactics. ALL need to be used in conjunction for a layered defense.

USMCFLYR

USMCFLYR

I don't know what "........." is suppose to mean in internet speak.
The post that you quoted suggested using racial profiling using a name - but I didn't see where in the post the member suggested that be the ONLY criteria - which I captialized in my response to you. Maybe you missed that important part. I'll bold, underline and color the text next time if it will help you understand my post.

USMCFLYR

LeftWing

(That's not internet speak, it was to fulfill the 10 character minimum requirement to post)

I fully understood your post. Given the post in question doesn't mention any other method, using names as the sole criteria is implied.

Just because you disagree with the semantics is no reason for you to get testy. If you reply, please type in bold type, underlines and colors....so I can understand you.

Zoot Suit

Maybe we can ban watches on planes. That way the terrorist bomber won't know he is an hour out and we can have our blankets and pillows back and parents can take their screaming kids to the bathroom before landing.

USMCFLYR

Nah...takes to much time and I'm going outside to enjoy the sunshine

Guess we'll have be to agree on the glass is half full/half empty approach then. To me - he mentions one type of profiling but doesn't say that others are available. To you - since he only mentions one then he only means one. Your implication is different than my implication.

Testy? Oh I can't get testy, but I do get to have an opinion and I do get to argue its' merit. When you aren't arguing based on the same set of criteria though it is kind of a moot point - apples to oranges type of thing.

In the end - based on some of your other posts - we actually seem to be in more agreement than disagreement.

USMCFLYR

hjs1971

How about we take half of TSA's payroll, since most of them stand around doing nothing or making their 15 minute union mandated breaks every hour turn into 30 minute breaks, and hire more air marshalls, that would be a good start. Racial profiling would be a good start but that would only help domestically, looking for muslims on a flight originating in Nigeria, Sudan, Cairo, etc. is going to be very hard. Richard Reid and this turd got on airplanes outside the U.S., nothing our inept TSA could have done about that.

Has anybody here ever travelled on a bus, ferry, or train outside the U.S. (or inside for that matter)? Do you know what kind of security measures there are? I have done all of the above in the last two years and the answer is pretty close to none. We can hamper air travel all we want, eventually, the terrorists will wise up and start carrying big backpacks full of basic TNT onto trains. Blow that up inside the train station and you get a pretty dramatic result, almost as dramatic as an A-330 over Detroit.

There are really only 4 possible solutions to this problem. We become incredibly aggressive and go after every country that could be remotely harboring these people but that would entail quadroupling our military and alienating most of the world as we invade over 20 more countries. As much as I personally kinda like this idea, not even remotely plausible.

We just say, to heck with it, we will accept some losses (some losses are acceptable in every war, right?) and we go back to how things were pre 9/11. We may lose a few more airplanes but air travel will be much easier, heck, we may even see a nice uptick in # of passengers.

We can become incredibly stringent in pre-screening. More layers, interviews (like El Al), more bomb puffer machines, every bag and person gets sniffed by a machine and dog, more air marshalls, every bag that is checked gets searched by hand, machine, and dog, etc. That would entail arriving at the airport the day prior to your flight, probably not feasible but it would make things quite safe!

Lastly, the most rational idea is to increase our security thru increased intelligence, not like "military intel", but using some racial profiling, put air marshalls on flights from Yemen but not from FLL to LGA, not making everyone take off their shoes but if a sketchy looking person has on some 5" platforms that could hold a few pounds of C-4, make them go thru a scanner. Make the TSA smarter, 90 yr old women can take 4oz of hand cream thru security. A 30 yr old middle eastern man can not take scissors thru. This would be the most logical choice, therefore, it will be the last one our govt will consider...just my $.02

On a side note, remember after 9/11, every airport had a few Natl Guard soldiers patrolling with M-16/M-4's and a few dogs. Didn't you at least FEEL a little safer. Granted, an 18 yr old Private is not a trained behavioral psychologist but if a terrorist with some explosives saw them, they might be more likely to give themselves away in some form or another. It might also help the economy, give some of these Guardmen/Reservists a few paydays. We already do with the patrols of the borders, why not the airports? I don't mean an entire battallion at small commuter type airports but a patrol of one or two that make themselves highly visible with a dog or two in tow. To me, they are more of a detterent (at $200 a day for the pair) than a 50 old, overweight cop doing the same job for $400/day because he's getting triple overtime.

Sorry to rant...

Cargo Man

No need to reinvent the wheel here.
What does Israel do?

Yeah I know, they use their brains.