Terrorists Win: Deodorant Banned From Airplanes

[Napoleon TNT]

Tell that to Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

As soon as Timmy McVeigh and Ted K-types start blowing up and highjacking aircraft, then we can profile that group at the airport.

Until then, PROFILE THE PROBLEM.

Situation:

You are on an overnight. Laying in bed, you hear a creature a stirring in your room. You flip the light on, and find out that it is a cobra snake that has found it's way into your room. Do you kindly turn the light off, and ignore the snake, because "Hey, it hasn't done anything to me yet. So, I should not bother it."

Or, knowing that snakes can strike, and possibly kill you, do you take care of the problem, and get the snake out of your room?

I'd get the thing out before anything bad could happen.

Profiling works.

In the instance of making travel difficult for the profiled group, GOOD!!! Maybe that would motivate them to assist in rooting out these problem cells.

Look back in history. Christians had a similar problem during WWII. Some idiot named Hitler had equally stupid ideas of infidels, and other creeds. He got a little farther with his conquests and goals than the current day Muslims fanatics have. But, what happened is that the rest of the Christians during WWII did not want themselves to be represented by Hitler, and they called upon, and assisted in, getting him out of power. This included the Vatican, with public condeming of Hitler's ways.

Where is the head of the Muslim faith? Where are the Islamic leaders?? Why are they so quiet, and not assisting in defeat of these nit-whits?!?!?

The Nation of Islam, if they are really against these terrorists, must step up to the plate.

 

[hatetoadmitit]

Seems to me that racial profiling already happens in America. Usually when there is a new serial murderer that the FBI is looking for we always hear that famous quote "we(the FBI) are looking for a WHITE man is his late 30's early 40's." And they are usually correct. If it's OK for the FBI to do it in serial murder cases it should be OK for the TSA to do it to serial airplane hijackers!

 

[FN FAL]

If it's OK for the FBI to do it in serial murder cases it should be OK for the TSA to do it to serial airplane hijackers!

Define serial airplane hijackers, cracker.

 

[hatetoadmitit]

Define serial airplane hijackers, cracker.

Now thats funny!

 

[FN FAL]

Now thats funny!

it is kind of a quandary, isn't it?

 

[brainhurts]

I never addressed the issue that Coulter was addressing, I merely pointed out that her argument was based on nothing, which is a common theme with her. I have my own ideas on security that may or may not jibe with Coulters (or yours).

If you want to have an intellegent discussion about security start a thread, I'll participate. Someone posted an Ann Coulter article and several flightinfo members praised her, this is not an intellegent discussion. I tried to add a little levity to the thread. Some people will understand it, some won't

The reality is that most people on this board know much more about airport security than she does. I include myself among those people, though I still haven't given my opinion on the subject on this thread and don't intend to do so.

Furthur, to suggest that I have no business around an airplane based on a thread in which I quoted Billy Madison is absurd. Show me in the quoted article where Coulter adds one fact, statistic, or other relevant information to support her argument and I'll apologize for my first thread. This article is no different from any other that Ann Coulter has ever written. Her arguments are often off-point and/or bigoted and are rarely supported by fact or analysis. She's the one who accused several 9/11 widows of enjoying their husbands dealth.

In conclusion...

...Ann Coulter is an idiot...


...and not hot.

Drew, are you an eyes closed, ears shut, mouth open liberal? Your automatic hair trigger reaction to Miss Ann is a viseral reacton to you "in touch with your feminine side" wackos. She writes a short column and can not footnote each fact, but if you are in the airline biz and can't see the truth in her short article, then I actually pity you for not being able to get beyond your ascot and smoking jacket superior view of the world. She is right about the 9 11 widows. She never said "enjoying their husbands death" you typical liberal word twister. She points out the exploitation of their death by using their deaths to put forward their twisted religion of liberalism to the detriment of our troops. The overall "tone" of your few posts here I've read keeps refering to yourself as the "standard" of intelligent thought. Any debate with you will turn out to be a large word filled, emotionally charged, flamboyant, hissy fit. The reason you do not like Ann is because everytime she writes an article it bursts your ideology. The reason you do not think she is hot, is because you are conditioned by your party to think Cindy Sheehan and Madeline Albright are hot. (That is on the outside chance that they allow you to prefer women)
Peace, Love, Rock and Roll

 

[Whine Lover]

"Ann Coulter is an idoit."

Possibly. However, she can read and write...


YKW

 

[Vastly Underemp]

"You look for weapons, we look for terrorists...."

El Al spokesman

 

[NEDude]

As soon as Timmy McVeigh and Ted K-types start blowing up and highjacking aircraft, then we can profile that group at the airport.

Okay, then start it. Ted Kaczynski put a bomb on American Airlines flight 444 back in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber


And of course a person who would blow up a bunch of little kids would never think of bombing an airplane.

 

[Napoleon TNT]

Okay, then start it. Ted Kaczynski put a bomb on American Airlines flight 444 back in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber


And of course a person who would blow up a bunch of little kids would never think of bombing an airplane.

OK...27 years ago, you got a loonie guy that attempted a bombing.

Since then, they hunted him down, and got him.

If the last reference you have is from that long ago, we could fill up the flightinfo server with Islamic extremist actions over the same time.

Right now, at this point in time, the problem consistently surfaces as Islamic Extremists.

And yes, if a Christian nut gets on a plane and attempts to blow it up tomorrow, then we look at that group a little more. If a pattern develops over time, then we profile that group too.

 

[JohnnyP]

....

Okay, then start it. Ted Kaczynski put a bomb on American Airlines flight 444 back in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber


And of course a person who would blow up a bunch of little kids would never think of bombing an airplane.

I think that statement under your username says it all, if this is how you think.

 

[NEDude]

I think that statement under your username says it all, if this is how you think.

You mean the "In Denial"?

Answer me this, how do you know someone is a muslim? When you buy an airline ticket, get a drivers license or passport, open a bank account, or get a job, where are you asked your religion?

Do you know that Arabs make up only 20% of the muslim population? Are you aware that Islamic terrorists have been recruiting non-Arabs? Are you aware that they have been recruiting U.S. citizens?

So tell me, how do you propose we profile muslims? How do you even identify someone as a muslim?

Why would you skip profling others groups or individuals who have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism but may be interested in aviation? Do you propose the DHS follow the path that we so criticize the FAA for and wait until people have died before they take steps to prevent it?

I am all for profiling, I just don't see how you can profile muslims. Nor do I see why you would want to only profile muslims.

I am truly sorry that you think because of that, I am in denial. I think those who feel it is a simple problem with a simple solution are the ones in denial.

 

[brainhurts]

You mean the "In Denial"?

Answer me this, how do you know someone is a muslim? When you buy an airline ticket, get a drivers license or passport, open a bank account, or get a job, where are you asked your religion?

Do you know that Arabs make up only 20% of the muslim population? Are you aware that Islamic terrorists have been recruiting non-Arabs? Are you aware that they have been recruiting U.S. citizens?
So tell me, how do you propose we profile muslims? How do you even identify someone as a muslim?
Why would you skip profling others groups or individuals who have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism but may be interested in aviation? Do you propose the DHS follow the path that we so criticize the FAA for and wait until people have died before they take steps to prevent it?
I am all for profiling, I just don't see how you can profile muslims. Nor do I see why you would want to only profile muslims.
I am truly sorry that you think because of that, I am in denial. I think those who feel it is a simple problem with a simple solution are the ones in denial.

Lets "start" with Arabic looking men from 17 to 45 that look nervous or who are actng weird. Lets look for evidence of a freshly shaven beard, carrying a "martyr's suit", background check of no fly list, etc. These guys should trigger a "modified" El Al style secutity check. When a person makes a reservation, the name could trigger a background check by company security. If there is a question, that person could be "flagged" for extra searching and their checked luggage should be searched when they show up. Last minute passengers that fit the profile should get the same. I don't know, I don't think it is not possible to profile.
Wilkepedia: On the ground

In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation. The likelihood of potential terrorists staying cool under such inquisitive probing is considered low. All passengers are classified on a basic 3 tier threat scale: Israelis and Jews are usually classified as the lowest threat, Westerners are usually classified as medium level threats, and Arabs (particularly males) are usually classified as high threat.
At the check-in counter, ground staff scrutinise the passport and the ticket. They won't accept a ticket without a sticker from the security checkers. Once through passport control, where the person's name is checked through a computer, the person and their hand luggage go through rigorous screening, including hand searches.

Just an idea.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

The fly in the ointment will prove to be redneck copycats trying to get in the news by riding on the terrorism train. Some ignorant non-Muslim yahoo is going to try to blow up a plane just because it's in the news and he wants to go out with a bang. Profile behavior first, ethnicity second.

Like Timothy McVeigh

Tejas

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Not all terrorists are muslim, but muslim terrorists are the most likely threat to US interests.

This madness will continue until the absoute foolishness of the left is exposed,

I agree with the first point. It is Muslim terrorrists that are our biggest threat.

2nd point. I wish the fix was that simple. Remember, the right has had the Presidency and the majority of votes in both Houses since 9-11. And....we still have this sham of an airport security system....political correctness where profiling is concerned...the President breaking bread with Muslims at the White House and his picture holding hands with the Saudi prince....and now 2 new arms of the govt.- TSA and Homeland Security....so much for those who espouse less government.

Tejas

 

[brainhurts]

I think if republicans had more of a mandate, things would change. The reason things are slow is because the nation is split on these issues and our system is built so that issues move slowly. I am pretty conservative, but I do not like the idea of "we just won with a thin majority, so lets change everything". That works both ways. For example, if the Libs win the next election in a thin majority, they could impose their idea of society by forcing everyone to be gay, forcing those who do get pregnant to have abortions, forcing us all to convert to Islam, but replace "Allah" with Bill Clinton and Hillary is his Prophet. I like the slow approach. Sadly, that means its going to take another big strike on the US to drive home the impact to our slow witted liberal countrymen.

 

[NEDude]

I think if republicans had more of a mandate, things would change. The reason things are slow is because the nation is split on these issues and our system is built so that issues move slowly. I am pretty conservative, but I do not like the idea of "we just won with a thin majority, so lets change everything". That works both ways. For example, if the Libs win the next election in a thin majority, they could impose their idea of society by forcing everyone to be gay, forcing those who do get pregnant to have abortions, forcing us all to convert to Islam, but replace "Allah" with Bill Clinton and Hillary is his Prophet. I like the slow approach. Sadly, that means its going to take another big strike on the US to drive home the impact to our slow witted liberal countrymen.

Hmm, more of a mandate? Republicans control the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, arguably have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and even a 28-22 edge in Governorships. News flash, there isn't anything else the Republicans can control. What kind of a mandate do you need? No Democrats anywhere?

I am sorry that for George and company, controlling everything still isn't enough of an edge.

(and note- I really did vote for GWB so consider that when making your comments)

 

[Grinder10]

Profiling or not, Arabs carrying deodorant seems very suspicious.

 

[bubbers44]

Hopefully the next election will help get us going in a better direction. We need a change. Hopefully Katherine will win the Republican Senate side for Florida, then Bill will win for sure. She really has problems. George has lost all credibility and I think he will bring the Republican party down with him. People are distancing themselves from him everywhere.

 

[brainhurts]

Hmm, more of a mandate? Republicans control the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, arguably have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and even a 28-22 edge in Governorships. News flash, there isn't anything else the Republicans can control. What kind of a mandate do you need? No Democrats anywhere?

I am sorry that for George and company, controlling everything still isn't enough of an edge.

(and note- I really did vote for GWB so consider that when making your comments)

I'm referring, you idiot, to the mandate your liberal masters keep refering to. It is your side that keeps claiming that since the numbers are so close--in other words, although we control all bodies of government, the percentages are so close that there is no mandate. This is your side saying this. Just because we have a majority, it does not mean we have a blank check because the numbers show that you have to run a fine line to retain power. With your side using its 38% to 44% of 300 million people, you drag at the party in power not allowing a true conservative platform of ideas. As I said above--this is good, because even though I am conservative and would like conservative ideas put foreward, I do not want them rammed down anyones throat--I want them accepted. Thanks for the news flash loser.