Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Do we really need the TSA anymore? Have we EVER?

1234568

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    The real problem I've yet to see really addressed, is the gigantic security threat that is a big back up of people all bunched up in small space in an otherwise completely unsecure area in the terminal.

    That's true, they don't check you at the door. I guess the problem is getting enough funding to have more people to process people getting onto flights, as well as additional security in the public areas.

    I'm getting less confident in this whole thing.

    By the way I forgot to note earlier when I said I haven't flown since the 90's, it had nothing to do with fear of terrorism, it's my fear of flying to begin with. :P

    Actually the solution would be to get rid of all the idiotic requirements which make going through security that much more of a hassle/time consuming. You should be permitted to walk through the magnetometer or full body scanner thingy with your shoes on, for instance. Also, probably hire more people to work more often since most people show up for flights at relatively similar times so you're going to get it coming in waves.

    Would the full body thing let me keep my belt on, and keys in my pocket? Because if so I'd honestly prefer to walk through computer visualized nakey time than the metal detector just out of laziness.

    moniker on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Even if you have a 6" knife, or a goddamn longsword, if you're capable of taking on a plane-full of passengers with the thing then you're probably capable of taking them on without it. You can only stick a sharp thing into one person at a time and the 'knife' on a pair of clippers or a pair of sewing scissors or similar isn't much more threatening than a well-honed thumbnail.
    I'm assured that the guy with the longsword is gonna have a harder time overpowering me than the guy with the 6" knife, if for no more reason than he can't swing a fucking longsword inside an airplane unless he's on Lex Luthor Airlines and all there is in there is a couch and a wetbar.

    What about a chainsaw?


    The TSA should do what El Al does and just have guys to talk to every passenger.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    I'm going to be packing a dildo to wrap around my leg. I want the TSA to be impressed.
    spinaltapsecurityk.jpg

    SithDrummer on
    It's an easy game to hate
  • projectmayhemprojectmayhem Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Hey so. I am flying tomorrow for the first time in like...15 years, its cool if I take my iphone right?

    projectmayhem on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Hey so. I am flying tomorrow for the first time in like...15 years, its cool if I take my iphone right?

    Yeah, but make sure you put it through the conveyor. Also, they will mention when you have to turn it off on the plane, but most phones have an "airplane mode" or some such.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The TSA should do what El Al does and just have guys to talk to every passenger.
    Where are you going today?
    Why are you going there?
    Sir, please refrain from setting your wife's sexting-lover's house on fire until you're on the ground. Have a nice day.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hey so. I am flying tomorrow for the first time in like...15 years, its cool if I take my iphone right?

    Yeah, but make sure you put it through the conveyor. Also, they will mention when you have to turn it off on the plane, but most phones have an "airplane mode" or some such.

    Depending on the airline they'll let you use 'em in flight now. Some for only data/text and others full on taking calls &c.

    moniker on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The TSA should do what El Al does and just have guys to talk to every passenger.
    Where are you going today?
    Why are you going there?

    For the record I think this is a fantastic idea. There is a tremendous amount of insurance fraud that is caught exactly this way.

    japan on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    japan wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The TSA should do what El Al does and just have guys to talk to every passenger.
    Where are you going today?
    Why are you going there?

    For the record I think this is a fantastic idea. There is a tremendous amount of insurance fraud that is caught exactly this way.

    Do you have any idea how many people fly every day? That's going to be a lot to handle.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • GothicLargoGothicLargo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Also... he's a dead man if he ever sets foot in general population. Five minutes tops. Hell even in a supermax he's probably still dead; the gangs will find a way to do it just so they can take credit for it.

    Doubtful. The muslim contingent is pretty powerful in it's own right inside. A lot of guys convert for that reason. And the bangers kill each other for control of the drug trade, not for notoriety.

    He's black, a foreigner, and tried to kill a plane full of Americans. The aryan splinter gang in whatever supermax he gets sent to, will try to kill him.

    GothicLargo on
    atfc.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The TSA should do what El Al does and just have guys to talk to every passenger.
    Where are you going today?
    Why are you going there?

    For the record I think this is a fantastic idea. There is a tremendous amount of insurance fraud that is caught exactly this way.

    Do you have any idea how many people fly every day? That's going to be a lot to handle.

    They don't actually write down the responses, or even care. It's just a matter of how you respond. Shifty eyes = hmm, maybe this should be looked into.

    moniker on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The TSA should do what El Al does and just have guys to talk to every passenger.
    Where are you going today?
    Why are you going there?

    For the record I think this is a fantastic idea. There is a tremendous amount of insurance fraud that is caught exactly this way.

    Do you have any idea how many people fly every day? That's going to be a lot to handle.

    They don't actually write down the responses, or even care. It's just a matter of how you respond. Shifty eyes = hmm, maybe this should be looked into.

    Yeah, the way it's done is that people are sorted into a group over which there are no particular concerns (which doesn't mean they're trusted in any way, simply that nothing is obviously amiss) and a group for further investigation.

    You can do it in multiple layers, too. Done right people aren't even aware that they've been "flagged" or whatever. There's no recording of responses or anything.

    As someone who has actually done this (albeit in the insurance context) you would be surprised how much probing you can do without having to refer to external sources. All you're looking for is a general feeling for whether or not the information they give you and the manner of their response ties up with their professed intentions.

    EDIT: Most people spend long enough at a check-in desk or similar to do this already. Online and self-service check-in excluded, obviously.

    japan on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    moniker on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    We have racist law enforcement as is, and since the airport folks aren't exactly up to police standards, would you expect them to not be?

    Not saying all of them are going to be racist. But it's going to become an issue.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I've never understood why it was hard to smuggle a bomb on to a plane. Or rather, just an explosive liquid/gel/powder. You put the substance in a completely air tight bag. Give the outside a thorough wash with all kinds of soaps and chemicals and what have you so no smells remain. Put it in your pants, and walk in. Blow it up in the bathroom. A lot of compounds blow up simply from getting smashed really hard. Or you could mix two together. etc etc.

    Sure, if I get randomly chosen for a strip search I'm in trouble, but that's never happened to me and I fly a lot. So what's the big deal?

    NotYou on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    We have racist law enforcement as is, and since the airport folks aren't exactly up to police standards, would you expect them to not be?

    Not saying all of them are going to be racist. But it's going to become an issue.

    Who's expecting them not to be?

    moniker on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hey so. I am flying tomorrow for the first time in like...15 years, its cool if I take my iphone right?

    Yeah, but make sure you put it through the conveyor. Also, they will mention when you have to turn it off on the plane, but most phones have an "airplane mode" or some such.

    You know what, this is even more bullshit. Look, if using electronics during takeoff or landing or anything that transmitted radio waves was actually dangerous, they wouldn't let you bring it on the plane! So what's with the bullshit "we've reached ten thousand feet so it's now okay to take out your laptop, but make sure the wireless is off!"

    Daedalus on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hey so. I am flying tomorrow for the first time in like...15 years, its cool if I take my iphone right?

    Yeah, but make sure you put it through the conveyor. Also, they will mention when you have to turn it off on the plane, but most phones have an "airplane mode" or some such.

    You know what, this is even more bullshit. Look, if using electronics during takeoff or landing or anything that transmitted radio waves was actually dangerous, they wouldn't let you bring it on the plane! So what's with the bullshit "we've reached ten thousand feet so it's now okay to take out your laptop, but make sure the wireless is off!"

    They actually can and do interfere with communications equipment, as I've seen it happen in smaller cessna's and so on. I was on a trip with my boss in his plane and my cell phone all the way in the back was fucking up the radio all over the place. Now whether or not it's a problem on a larger jet airliner, I have no idea, but I'm all for that rule, as it keeps self important jackass business types from trying to conduct "listen to how important I am" meetings over the phone during a flight.

    Dark_Side on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    Blow it up in the bathroom.

    That's what I don't get with the shoe/pants bombers.

    The goal is to damage the plane so badly that it goes down, right? Why do it in the seat where passengers can stop you? Go do it in the bathroom!

    There are probably smoke detectors in the bathroom and the door can be broken down, but it still probably gives you more time to set it off than right next to a passenger who spots you and starts punching your face.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    We have racist law enforcement as is, and since the airport folks aren't exactly up to police standards, would you expect them to not be?

    Not saying all of them are going to be racist. But it's going to become an issue.

    I've gone back and forth to Canada pretty often in the past few years, and I saw absolutely no one but non-fluent speakers pulled to the back room. It basically becomes a cultural litmus test for travel.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • GrombarGrombar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    True story: For about a month, in the 80s, Reagan made it illegal to say the word "hijack" at an airport. So airports posted "DON'T SAY 'HIJACK'" signs around. My dad liked to go up to airport security and say, "Yeah, I'm having trouble reading that sign. Could you read it for me?"

    Grombar on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    The person you're picking up at the airport had better not be named Jack.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    We have racist law enforcement as is, and since the airport folks aren't exactly up to police standards, would you expect them to not be?

    Not saying all of them are going to be racist. But it's going to become an issue.

    I've gone back and forth to Canada pretty often in the past few years, and I saw absolutely no one but non-fluent speakers pulled to the back room. It basically becomes a cultural litmus test for travel.

    This makes me sad inside.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    We have racist law enforcement as is, and since the airport folks aren't exactly up to police standards, would you expect them to not be?

    Not saying all of them are going to be racist. But it's going to become an issue.

    I've gone back and forth to Canada pretty often in the past few years, and I saw absolutely no one but non-fluent speakers pulled to the back room. It basically becomes a cultural litmus test for travel.

    This makes me sad inside.

    The really ridiculous part is that on the US-> Quebec side, they have fluent French and English speakers. On the Quebec->US side they had no French speaking border guards. So obviously every person who say, was born in goddamn Quebec, is difficult to understand.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    So wait, greeter person asks the questions. Questions are answered and based on the response, the greeter directs people to line A or line B. One is for people who seem fine, the other for people who may not be. Is that what you guys mean?

    'Cause non-English fluent people are FUCKED.

    Based on how they respond, not based on the response itself. It's akin to the cops who ask if you have any suspicious items in the car 'like bazookas, dead bodies, or Jimmy Hoffa?' and if you look white in the face with terror will decide to actually run your plate through the computer rather than just write the ticket and head off. A non-fluent English speaker would likely respond with a 'o_O' or ':?'expression or something else that you'd expect.

    We have racist law enforcement as is, and since the airport folks aren't exactly up to police standards, would you expect them to not be?

    Not saying all of them are going to be racist. But it's going to become an issue.

    I've gone back and forth to Canada pretty often in the past few years, and I saw absolutely no one but non-fluent speakers pulled to the back room. It basically becomes a cultural litmus test for travel.

    This makes me sad inside.

    The really ridiculous part is that on the US-> Quebec side, they have fluent French and English speakers. On the Quebec->US side they had no French speaking border guards. So obviously every person who say, was born in goddamn Quebec, is difficult to understand.

    I am fucking SHOCKED that the people checking others into the USA don't speak their language.

    Our fucking border system is a joke, and the lack of speakers fluent in the languages of neighboring nations is probably the biggest offense. Whenever people talk about immigration in our nation though they mean Mexicans. It's always Mexicans, it's always the Spanish language. French though? Fuck that shit!

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Blow it up in the bathroom.

    That's what I don't get with the shoe/pants bombers.

    The goal is to damage the plane so badly that it goes down, right? Why do it in the seat where passengers can stop you? Go do it in the bathroom!

    There are probably smoke detectors in the bathroom and the door can be broken down, but it still probably gives you more time to set it off than right next to a passenger who spots you and starts punching your face.

    Bathrooms aren't located over the wings.

    moniker on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    Bathrooms aren't located over the wings.

    First good answer I've heard yet.

    But they're still likely to have to rely on getting placed there, unless they want to start a fight to get into position, and as already shown, a single guy doesn't have a good chance at that.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Bathrooms aren't located over the wings.

    First good answer I've heard yet.

    But they're still likely to have to rely on getting placed there, unless they want to start a fight to get into position, and as already shown, a single guy doesn't have a good chance at that.

    This is why they don't fly Southwest or whatever airline it was with 'fiesta seating' and actually buy a ticket with seat numbers. The panty-bomber dude was in the window seat towards the middle-ish part of the wing.

    moniker on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    The real problem I've yet to see really addressed, is the gigantic security threat that is a big back up of people all bunched up in small space in an otherwise completely unsecure area in the terminal.
    That's no more of a danger than any other "soft target" where groups of people congregate. We haven't really seen terrorists target places like movie theatres and restaurants in this country, but such targets are pretty popular for terrorists around the world.

    Frankly, I wonder why terrorists keep targetting planes in this country- there are plenty of other soft targets they could go after with a lot more success.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    The real problem I've yet to see really addressed, is the gigantic security threat that is a big back up of people all bunched up in small space in an otherwise completely unsecure area in the terminal.
    That's no more of a danger than any other "soft target" where groups of people congregate. We haven't really seen terrorists target places like movie theatres and restaurants in this country, but such targets are pretty popular for terrorists around the world.

    Frankly, I wonder why terrorists keep targetting planes in this country- there are plenty of other soft targets they could go after with a lot more success.

    For some reason, I don't think fanaticism correlates with imagination and creativity.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I guess terrorists assume it is easier to hijack a plane/smuggle a bomb aboard than it is to get a bomb in the US.

    No one tell them how easy it is to get explosives...

    Aldo on
    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Soft targets don't really represent a concrete picture of 'America' that would be the goal of global jihadism. Airplanes, transportation, government structures on the other hand being disrupted more credibly play to the notion that they're tangibly wounding (in the case of airplanes putting the fear of air travel into people with a successful attack) the country.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    The real problem I've yet to see really addressed, is the gigantic security threat that is a big back up of people all bunched up in small space in an otherwise completely unsecure area in the terminal.
    That's no more of a danger than any other "soft target" where groups of people congregate. We haven't really seen terrorists target places like movie theatres and restaurants in this country, but such targets are pretty popular for terrorists around the world.

    Frankly, I wonder why terrorists keep targetting planes in this country- there are plenty of other soft targets they could go after with a lot more success.

    For some reason, I don't think fanaticism correlates with imagination and creativity.
    I don't know- the various attacks they keep trying to pull off on planes seem to be much more complex and creative than walking into a showing of Avatar on opening night with a bomb vest under your North Face jacket.

    Maybe it's a sense of drama, I don't know.

    Look at the Beltway snipers- two guys basically disrupted a big part of the Mid-Atlantic with a rusty old car and a couple of rifles. Imagine the disruption if there were 5 teams of guys wandering around the area picking off people in parking lots.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    The real problem I've yet to see really addressed, is the gigantic security threat that is a big back up of people all bunched up in small space in an otherwise completely unsecure area in the terminal.
    That's no more of a danger than any other "soft target" where groups of people congregate. We haven't really seen terrorists target places like movie theatres and restaurants in this country, but such targets are pretty popular for terrorists around the world.

    Frankly, I wonder why terrorists keep targetting planes in this country- there are plenty of other soft targets they could go after with a lot more success.

    For some reason, I don't think fanaticism correlates with imagination and creativity.
    I don't know- the various attacks they keep trying to pull off on planes seem to be much more complex and creative than walking into a showing of Avatar on opening night with a bomb vest under your North Face jacket.

    Maybe it's a sense of drama, I don't know.

    Look at the Beltway snipers- two guys basically disrupted a big part of the Mid-Atlantic with a rusty old car and a couple of rifles. Imagine the disruption if there were 5 teams of guys wandering around the area picking off people in parking lots.

    Yeah, or have a couple of guys with trucks block off either end of a bridge at rush hour, and then your kill team (in a van in the middle of the bridge) just gets out and pops as many stuck in their vehicles as possible.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    The real problem I've yet to see really addressed, is the gigantic security threat that is a big back up of people all bunched up in small space in an otherwise completely unsecure area in the terminal.
    That's no more of a danger than any other "soft target" where groups of people congregate. We haven't really seen terrorists target places like movie theatres and restaurants in this country, but such targets are pretty popular for terrorists around the world.

    Frankly, I wonder why terrorists keep targetting planes in this country- there are plenty of other soft targets they could go after with a lot more success.

    For some reason, I don't think fanaticism correlates with imagination and creativity.
    I don't know- the various attacks they keep trying to pull off on planes seem to be much more complex and creative than walking into a showing of Avatar on opening night with a bomb vest under your North Face jacket.

    Maybe it's a sense of drama, I don't know.

    Look at the Beltway snipers- two guys basically disrupted a big part of the Mid-Atlantic with a rusty old car and a couple of rifles. Imagine the disruption if there were 5 teams of guys wandering around the area picking off people in parking lots.

    Yeah, I was just about to suggest that perhaps hitting airplanes is more disruptive, in business terms or otherwise, than hitting random soft targets on the ground.....until I remembered those guys.
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hey so. I am flying tomorrow for the first time in like...15 years, its cool if I take my iphone right?

    Yeah, but make sure you put it through the conveyor. Also, they will mention when you have to turn it off on the plane, but most phones have an "airplane mode" or some such.

    You know what, this is even more bullshit. Look, if using electronics during takeoff or landing or anything that transmitted radio waves was actually dangerous, they wouldn't let you bring it on the plane! So what's with the bullshit "we've reached ten thousand feet so it's now okay to take out your laptop, but make sure the wireless is off!"

    They actually can and do interfere with communications equipment, as I've seen it happen in smaller cessna's and so on. I was on a trip with my boss in his plane and my cell phone all the way in the back was fucking up the radio all over the place. Now whether or not it's a problem on a larger jet airliner, I have no idea, but I'm all for that rule, as it keeps self important jackass business types from trying to conduct "listen to how important I am" meetings over the phone during a flight.

    They can interfere with more than just communications. I could tell you guys all about the pain in the ass that is RF noise coupling with control or communication systems. They've finally relaxed and decided that Wi-Fi isn't particularly disruptive (with Delta, at least, offering it on their flights) but cellphones are still a no-go.

    And no, one guy having a cellphone on isn't going to crash a plane. It's simply going to increase the likelihood of mild disruption. Which is why they're not concerned that the occasional cellphone winding up transmitting, so they allow them. Now, if there were a hundred people chatting and texting throughout the flight? That might cause an issue. Thus, the rule ensures that the probability of any disruption is minimized.

    mcdermott on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Soft targets don't really represent a concrete picture of 'America' that would be the goal of global jihadism. Airplanes, transportation, government structures on the other hand being disrupted more credibly play to the notion that they're tangibly wounding (in the case of airplanes putting the fear of air travel into people with a successful attack) the country.

    If they want to put fear into people, I think a bunch of mall/cinema bombings would be a lot more effective.

    And it'd give MPAA something other than piracy to blame!

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Soft targets don't really represent a concrete picture of 'America' that would be the goal of global jihadism. Airplanes, transportation, government structures on the other hand being disrupted more credibly play to the notion that they're tangibly wounding (in the case of airplanes putting the fear of air travel into people with a successful attack) the country.

    If they want to put fear into people, I think a bunch of mall/cinema bombings would be a lot more effective.

    And it'd give MPAA something other than piracy to blame!

    I don't think they want to spread fear, what they want is government overreach. Millions of hours and trillions of dollars have been wasted with the formation of the DHS, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as thousands of lives. What's more, those wars boosted Al Qaeda's standing for a brief period. That's what they wanted. If we went all British with it and 'stiff upper lip' with it things would be massively different today. Which is why they keep targeting airlines. The massive disruptions there spread throughout the entire system and lead to further stupid requirements. Meanwhile a dude going on a rampage just screws up the immediate area and a lot of news coverage.

    moniker on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Soft targets don't really represent a concrete picture of 'America' that would be the goal of global jihadism. Airplanes, transportation, government structures on the other hand being disrupted more credibly play to the notion that they're tangibly wounding (in the case of airplanes putting the fear of air travel into people with a successful attack) the country.

    If they want to put fear into people, I think a bunch of mall/cinema bombings would be a lot more effective.

    And it'd give MPAA something other than piracy to blame!

    And this is always where I come up against a solid wall in arguments with people over security. In my opinion, there is no such thing as perfect security, it's impossible to achieve. The truth is that an act of air terrorism on the scale of Sept. 11 would never happen today, as the passengers would never allow it. (All the hijackers had were box cutters.) These small time guys seem to be copycats if they're anything. The Sept. 11 hijackings weren't a product of lax security so much as they were a deliberate taking advantage of our naivety/ignorance that anyone would ever attempt something so dastardly. And at any moment a terrorist group could, with little planning necessary, enact horrible damage to a multitude of soft targets. The only real security we can offer ourselves as a country is to not have foreign policy that makes us into convenient bad guys for men and women with absolutely nothing to lose.

    Dark_Side on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Soft targets don't really represent a concrete picture of 'America' that would be the goal of global jihadism. Airplanes, transportation, government structures on the other hand being disrupted more credibly play to the notion that they're tangibly wounding (in the case of airplanes putting the fear of air travel into people with a successful attack) the country.

    If they want to put fear into people, I think a bunch of mall/cinema bombings would be a lot more effective.

    And it'd give MPAA something other than piracy to blame!

    I think I've said it a bunch of times, but if criminals/terrorists were smart, we'd be so fucked.

    And yeah, the Washington snipers are a pretty god damn good example of what you can do with a small sustained ground campaign.

    electricitylikesme on
Sign In or Register to comment.