Posted on 11/19/2010 5:06:48 AM PST by opentalk
So, she watches a lot of Ron Jeremy huh.
___________________________________________________
Yeah, I wondered how she knew because I’ve never heard the name before now. Gene Simmons, yep, I know of him— he’s a good guy.
This was being justified by TSA, at congressional hearing this week, because of the underwear bomber incident last December.
He was a foreigner let on the plane even though he was flagged in govt data bases, his father had warned US embassy about him and he paid cash for the ticket.
Yes, because what you're talking about is just "fighting the last war." First of all, an occasional airliner already crashes or blows up for mechanical / weather / pilot error reasons -- it's frankly not that big of a trade-off, for the convenience & speed of airline travel, if there's also a Lockerbie-type event every several years. Bad things happen sometimes. Drunk drivers kill many times more people than terrorists every year, but we tolerate it.
But more importantly, anybody who is able to recruit suicide bombers would be stupid to waste them on plane attacks right now. If terrorists are willing to die for their cause, then there are much more 'terrorizing' attacks that could be made than bringing down a plane. If I wanted to strike fear into Americans and throw the nation into upheaval, I wouldn't use planes at all. I'd have my suicide operatives hijack a few fuel tanker trucks full of gasoline at truck stops -- essentially no security at all; just kill the driver and keep his body in the cab -- fit them with cheap bombs to ignite and spread the fuel, and then have them driven at maximum speed into elementary schools and day cares full of kids. Or do the same with ANFO like Tim McVeigh. It would not be hard at all to coordinate three or four such attacks all in the same afternoon in different suburban communities across the country. The sort of people who seized the Beslan school in Russia would not have any qualms about doing this sort of thing.
Does anyone disagree that this would be a MUCH bigger and more effective attack than anything that could be realistically done with a jetliner, even if a couple of the trucks were intercepted? And yet we don't have bureaucrats fondling truckers at weigh stations, and we don't have soldiers with RPGs guarding day cares. Why? Because it would be a stupid and ineffective approach at prevention. Just like what goes on at airports.
I was stopped at security yesterday because MY SKIRT HAD TOO MUCH MATERIAL! The security person insisted that I be felt up, sorry “patted down.” It was humiliating and disgusting and had caught me completly off-guard because I had been so careful to wear a sports bra and take off all my jewelry except for crucifix and wedding ring (I was stopped one time because the barrette in my hair set off the alarm). And then to be stopped for that! I will be writing and calling the airlines and telling them that if they don’t band together to stop this, they will have no customers left. We all have a choice, and I refuse to fly again.
They have a license to feel up anyone who catches their fancy. What you wear has nothing to do with it. You cannot avoid it. If they want to have their way with you, you are expected to “lie back and think of England”.
Maybe their next goal is to nationalize the airline industry.
Control travel to make is so unpleasant and expensive to fly that you are indirectly forced to reduce your carbon footprint. Are less free to move and easier to control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.