What security measure will YOU support in leu of attempted "terror attack"

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
I support driving everywhere. Flying is too much of a hastle.

Forget having some perv staring at naked people everyday. Thats garbage. Next we're gonna have to hear that rubber glove clap on the wrist. BOO THAT!!!!!

MessOnTheFED!

They will have to club me to death before they stick anything near my butt.

They will probably oblige too

reply to post by Janky Red


I certainly hope your not all asleep at the wheel this time around. I mean come on folks the Patriot Act should have been your wake up call.

This is unfortunate, staged? Perhaps. A lack of intelligence communication and human failure? Most likely.

There's no need to increase security, you simply need to make basic security extremely efficient. A difficult concept but not unattainable.

Say no to your government, they are like a child testing their boundaries. Give em' a foot and they will take a mile.

reply to post by Janky Red


Lube, Plastic gloves and a big burly fella named Steve = NO GOOD.

The sad thing is that is what its coming to. Ill be gettn clubbed right along with you.

MessOnTheFED!

Not one thing more. In fact I am for the reduction of security measures at airports.

I think people understand that if a terrorist gets on a plane, he does not mean to hijack that plane and keep hostages, a hijacking today means death. So with that in mind people aren't going to take someone trying to take over a plane anymore.

I think that when people realize that they far outnumber a group of hijackers on a plane they can overtake them and take back control of an aircraft.

Take away some of these ridiculous security measures, and if someone tries to blow up a plane, just let the passengers at them if they survive, they can be tried in a court.

Today, I heard an interesting proposal regarding the implementation of the body scanners. For those who feel that searches and/or body scans are an invasion of their privacy, offer security free flights.

It sounded like a good thought to me, so I came up with a few ideas. They, of course, will be at a higher ticket price, due to those flights having fewer passengers and in order to purchase additional liability insurance.

These flights will have no attendants. The cockpits will be fitted with ejection seats. The controls will automatically revert to a flightpath over an ocean, when the pilots eject, which will be impossible to override. Once over the ocean, the autopilot will attempt a safe water landing.

The difficult part is figuring out how to keep someone from just blowing up the plane over populated areas.

they just need to have a bathroom on the flight deck and have no door to the passenger compartment at all.there is no need for one.

you want in with the pilots i hope you can cling to the side of an airplane going 500mph.

then just sign a waiver that says hey you are flying,it's dangerous.deal with it hippy.
if you don't like it then walk drive or swim.

You know there was a time when the only thing to get on a flight was a ticket. Reading through this thread I started thinking about that, it really was not that long ago.
So much has changed, we have given up so much in the name of security.
Does anyone besides me remember those time? No metal detectors going into schools and courthouses?
I guess its come on a little at a time and we just let it. I don't know about the rest of you but I won't take any more, its not worth it.
Perhaps I have already lived to long to see all this come to pass.

NONE!!!

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. ~ Ben Franklin

Take the Pope being tackled, the elderly folks wandering onto the nuclear sub base, the uninvited guest at the White House. They cannot even secure the most "secure" places.

I have worked with infrastructure electronic security/access/surveillance systems for a while and see how "unsecure" things really are. If "terrorism" was as big a threat as they would have you believe, we would all be dead by now. It is a multi-trillion dollar industry that feeds on your fear.

Live Free or Die.




[edit on 30-12-2009 by timewalker]

Originally posted by projectvxn
The only effective means by which to secure ourselves from further Jihadist actions would be to pursue a non-interventionist policy and pull back the empire we have overseas. And ONLY use our military to accomplish the goal of DESTROYING AN ENEMY FORCE, rather than dithering with them and expecting some sort of awakening to happen where they suddenly don't wanna fight anymore while we somehow get to continue the same policies irrespective of how the rest of the world might feel.

Soon, however, we will be FORCED into this kind of policy just due to our outstanding debt.

Totally agree with this. The United States is a very effective offensive force but like all countries who have stayed on after an invasion to police a country that does want not a foriegn presence the US has lost more soldiers in this capacity then when they invaded and will continue to do so.

This is a historical truth in Afganistan and yet it is ignored. Throwing more troops at it will not solve this problem, it will only increase the growth of Islamic Fundamendastlists. Hate breeds hate.

The Right have sold the idea of this policing being needed through fear mongering, through the CIA, false flags etc.

I'm not an apologist for Islam, I believe it directly challenges the freedoms and beliefs of the west. It's the sleeping giant that the politically correct would have us turn our eyes away from.

There has to be a medium but while Oil is a pricinple interest and Drugs and Arms trade flow it seems unlikely and distant that things will change.

I just don't beleive throwing more young people into the meat grinder will decrease the rise of fundamentalism.

The United States could do so much more for it's people.

As to security measures that I'd support. When it comes to air travel, It's just a plain fact of life now. It sucks, it's a delay but it could mean the difference between getting to your destination safely.

Cameras have never bothered me but I can see how for some they are a concern.

Arrgggh I need a coffee

FirstRonin






[edit on 31-12-2009 by FirstRonin]

Good Thread JR, S & F

None,

Just enforce what we have and review it to see if it's effective, and then remove the useless ones.

If we do exactly what the Terrorist want, they won.

Terrorists seek to create terror, or a state of fear.

It wastes money and erodes confidence.

You can't guarantee against a terrorist strike. It's impossible without a global chip implant. (tongue in cheek)

If you go into a state of fear you surrender to terror.

It's a numbers game, and a sad statement on humanity, but bunker mentality is the aim, thus to comply is to surrender.

Ziggy

[edit on 10-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

reply to post by Janky Red


I would support the indefinite detainment of anyone who has made even the most vague terroristic threat against the US Government. There are civilized ways of making ones disapproval of government policy etc. known to our leadership without railing in favor of or threatening mass murder.

Originally posted by timewalker

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. ~ Ben Franklin

The true quote is: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
www.ushistory.org...
and
18thcenturyreadingroom.wordpress.com...

So, unless you are being denied the privilege of boarding a plane, your "essential" liberty has not been infringed. And, preventing terrorists from boarding planes with weapons is to achieve a permament safety, not a "little temporary safety".

I would like to ask those who know much more about software than me, this question, which could end the dispute over the scanners. If I can pose it in an understandable manner.

Is it possible to have the scanner software examine each pixel of the image and compare them using preprogrammed parameters? If so, could the images only be made visible to a security screener, when a certain number of pixels fall within those parameters?

It appears to me that any potential contraband is visible, due to the lightness or darkness of the pixels, which compose that image. In other words, a metal weapon, such as a knife or gun, is seen as a darker image. A concealed powder or liquid is seen as a lighter image.

So, my idea is that if a person is scanned and no anomaly is detected, by the scanner's software, then no image is displayed on the screener's monitor. Then, everyone would just have to ensure they have nothing on their person, which would activate the software's preprogrammed alerts.

Does that make sense?

cease all war in the middle east and return are soldiers home to lay in the bed the government as efficiently made for us all. meaning bring the soldiers home to defend, if need be. but the terrorism in the middle east needs to end.
that is the true terrorism of the world, right now.

reply to post by WTFover


Quote
s it possible to have the scanner software examine each pixel of the image and compare them using preprogrammed parameters? If so, could the images only be made visible to a security screener, when a certain number of pixels fall within those parameters?

It appears to me that any potential contraband is visible, due to the lightness or darkness of the pixels, which compose that image. In other words, a metal weapon, such as a knife or gun, is seen as a darker image. A concealed powder or liquid is seen as a lighter image.

End Quote


Hi,

Yes, but with a big caveat.
it would result in a very high number of false "hits", it require too many "red flag" indicators, and then the "search for unknown but suspect" hits would do the same, so only, rarely would find the safe condition..

What would solve the issue would be if they could upon a positive only display the suspect shapes or densities.

They would have to search for a lot of things, but they can if they choose to, eliminate the body and only display the anomalous areas.

I'm pretty sure that would work, in fact I'm sure.


Ziggy

[edit on 10-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

[edit on 10-1-2010 by ziggystrange]