Terrorists Win: Deodorant Banned From Airplanes

[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.