It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would You Allow These Two people to Touch Your Junk?

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


I had to star you for that post, it's amazingly simple truth. I was just discussing it with friend before you replied with verifiable statistics.

excerpt:

@Bob you're more likely to be killed by alcohol
@Bob via a drunk driver
@Bob or poisoning
@Bob or bad decisions made while drunk
Mike more likely to be killed by lightning
Mike than a terrorist
Bob more likely to be killed by a family member's gun
Mike more likely to crash in an airplane from poor maintenance than a terrorist
@Bob more likely to get food poisoning from shoddy fast food than a terrorist
Mike more likely to die from aids than a terrorist
Mike 10x more likely to die from cancer than a terrorist
@Bob more likely to die from aspartame

Yet everyone is so terrified of terrorists. The media is doing it's job terrorizing the public, I give them kudos for that.

EDIT:

@Gnarly...

Are you honestly trying to correlate a doctor doing an exam to coach touching your children in their no-nos? It's your DOCTOR, You elect to allow them to investigate your genitals and you can say no if you want to with no penalty.

That is the worst analogy ever.




Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent. Some types of sexual acts which fall under the category of sexual assault include forced sexual intercourse (rape), sodomy (oral or anal sexual acts), child molestation, incest, fondling and attempted rape. Sexual assault in any form is often a devastating crime. Assailants can be strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family members. Assailants commit sexual assault by way of violence, threats, coercion, manipulation, pressure or tricks [Your safety, risk a fine, etc]. Whatever the circumstances, no one asks or deserves to be sexually assaulted.


Source: The National Center for Victims of crime
edit on 17-11-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I'd like to see an independent study on how much dangerous contraband they really catch using the current methods.

I can see in the near future, invasive body scans in order to fly if we let this continue. If we want to get rid of it, just insist that EVERYONE be scanned or patted down.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


When TSA agents become MD's, you might have a point. Given the low level of intelligence we have seen the agents display, I dont think we have to worry about them even getting accepted into Jim Bobs House of Doctors and Chinese Food , let alone an actual medical school.

Until then, it qualifies as molestation.
edit on 17-11-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayson

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1
 


Of course it violates our rights.
. If I need to run near a pool I can go do it at another place. I don't complain that they're violating my constitutional right to run.


Would you mind showing me the part in the constitution that grants you the right to run?

Just wondering, because I can sure show you the part that makes it illegal to search and detain people just for the hell of it



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 


I'm confused by this quote and post. But!

Right to liberty = right to be free = right to freedom of movement = right to travel. Kind of = right to run?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Next time I have to fly I am putting on a Burkha and claiming religious freedom from this invasion of privacy. This is awesome! All we have to do is get the same rights as the Muslims. I have NOTHING against any religion, I just find it funny that our country can make exceptions for them but not us. And how ironic that is was Muslim terrorists that caused all this, and their women are the ones that won't have to be subjected to it.

But then again, was it really Muslim terrorists????

Just saw on the news that 80% of Americans are okay with these invasive searches. This tells me that 80% of Americans are effing retarded!!!
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cowgirlstraitup7 because: to add



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
reply to post by DIDtm
 



If some lady were to start fingering another woman during a pat down, that would be sexual assault. If a guy were to start stroking another guy during the pat down, that would be sexual assault. Just because you touch someone's genitals doesn't make it sexual assault, otherwise physicals would be considered sexual assault, and now Johnny can't play football! When the doctor has to look at you, that would be considered sexual assault, so we'll keep our "liberties, privacy and freedom" over what we wanted in the first place.

There are multiple people watching the pat down, which has already been established. Multiple customers and employees. If a single employee were to try to really get a good feel, they would first have to be gay. As we know, being gay isn't "natural" (I'm my actual views, everything that occurs is natural) so it's very unlikely that the person touching you is gay. Even if the person was gay, they most likely wouldn't want to "sexually assault" you because of the chance that you are ugly, fat, smell really bad, are old or for a bunch of various reasons. Even if they were gay, and they just loved feeling up on strangers like you claim, the very first second they were to do so is the very second they would be screwed. Everyone is watching, and there are cameras.

It boggles my mind to think that people actually think that the U.S. government wants to have it's own citizens sexually assaulted, or to take away our liberties. We're a freaking DEMOCRACY. We elect people into office. Those people in office are there for US, not to be against us. They do not make laws to have us sexually assaulted in line for a plane just for kicks. To think that a bunch, and I mean a bunch of people would actually get together just to do that? Do people really think that?

edit on 17-11-2010 by Gnarly because: Wrong word.



The thing is..most people are ignorant. Most people are blind. Americans anyway. Im not saying you are, but your rational and logic appears to be.
Not sure if you were referring to 'me' in your post, or using the term 'you' in general.
I am not old, fat, ugly, bald or have bad hygiene. If you are referring to 'me'.
If you are referring in general to anyone...lets go from there. So by your theories, the less fortunate people have less odds of being assaulted than that of fortunate people. While, I can agree with this assessment, is it fair for the more fortunate people to be 'randomly' selected for abrasive pat downs or asked to volunteer to enter the naked chamber?
Next...Im not sure of which gender you are, so Ill take this approach to my line of questioning and statements. You have an 18 year old son. Again hypothetically. And I (male) am chatting with him. And I grab his penis for whatever reason..since I am most likely not gay (according to your assessment) (and no, I am not gay). Would that not be considered assault. Or if I was talking to a girl in a bar and grabbed her breast. Would that not be assault. By your definition assault is only if an area is probed, fingered, stroked?
Because according to definition of 'sexual assault' it reads something along these lines.
****sexual assault - a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat; "most states have replaced the common law definition of rape with statutes defining sexual assault"****
Here is the link:
www.thefreedictionary.com...
To the next topic you referred to.
Yes..while we live in a democracy and vote people (most) into office, in many cases they dont vote or pass bills in the best interest of the people. Many times they go against the general will of the people. They scare us into thinking that....'yes. we are taking away this right, but its for the best. in the name of national security'.
You can sit back and listen to MSM news all you want and believe everything they tell you. You can even listen or watch or read BBC to get a little better understanding of what is going in your country. (mine as well) or you can take a bit from each source, investigate the best you can and come to your own conclusions of what might, and probably is going on in this country.
Does the govt want its citizens being assaulted? I wouldnt think so. But theyre allowing it to happen. You have to ask yourself why. For what agenda? Who's profiting from this?
Whats going on in the world around you, is not what it seems.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7
 


You don't have to wear a burka - TSA has afforded no rights to Muslim women above and beyond anyone else. I know it's very easy to be derogatory or facetious about the "perception" that they are, but they are not. Muslim women are subject to TSA rules/regulations in the same way that Nuns are and in the same way that 3-year old children are...

*Sarcasm on:
Don't we all feel good about that? I know I feel much safer...



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Thank you mryanbrown. You made a better point of describing 'sexual assault' than I ended up doing.
Star. Props.
edit on 17-11-2010 by DIDtm because: inserted wrong name when thanking.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 




Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent. Some types of sexual acts which fall under the category of sexual assault include forced sexual intercourse (rape), sodomy (oral or anal sexual acts), child molestation, incest, fondling and attempted rape. Sexual assault in any form is often a devastating crime. Assailants can be strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family members. Assailants commit sexual assault by way of violence, threats, coercion, manipulation, pressure or tricks [Your safety, risk a fine, etc]. Whatever the circumstances, no one asks or deserves to be sexually assaulted.


Notice how it says "touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way" and the difference of being patted down. These people aren't trying to get off patting you down. There is nothing sexual except for the fact that YOU think it's sexual.

To fondle a pair of breasts, you would really have to get a good grab on them, a nice handful for each hand. You would have to start massaging them or playing with the nipples. Not just barely touch them to make sure it's just a pair of boobs in the bra. To fondle a guy, you'd really have to grab him, get a firm grip. That would be sexual, because just touching some genitals with the back of you hand is not sexual, UNLESS YOU MAKE IT SEXUAL. Just like how it's NOT SEXUAL when a person gets a physical. IT IS ONLY SEXUAL IF YOU WANT IT TO BE, AND EVEN THEN THE EMPLOYEE MOST LIKELY DOESN'T WANT SEX WITH YOU.

Also, you elect people for government, just as you elect your own doctor. You DO have a say.

Edit: when I say these scenarios (in this post), I mean when getting patted down by a TSA. Not just randomly making sure it's a pair in the bra. I know how people like not taking everything into context.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Gnarly because: Clearer point.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


again, Ill post this:

Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.

Here is the link:
www.thefreedictionary.com...

You really need to read some of the complaints that people are issuing towards their 'pat downs'. I think your missing the point of what really is going on...not just what MSM tells you.
Check it out...Theyre all over youtube and other news sites.
A simple google search will give you plenty to investigate.
IT IS ASSAULTING!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
Notice how it says...


Notice how it says "usually", as not to exclude sexual assault of a non sexual nature. The unwarranted physical contact of any nature of a sexual part of the body without consent is sexual assault, period. Even if the attackers intentions aren't sexual, the victim still feels that it is. And since you violated the will of the victim, you dun dun dun...

ASSAULTED THEM.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Gnarly
Notice how it says...


Notice how it says "usually", as not to exclude sexual assault of a non sexual nature. The unwarranted physical contact of any nature of a sexual part of the body without consent is sexual assault, period. Even if the attackers intentions aren't sexual, the victim still feels that it is. And since you violated the will of the victim, you dun dun dun...

ASSAULTED THEM.


By buying the ticket, you are giving them permission. If these people really don't want to go through this stuff, all they have to do is not buy the ticket. So, again, how is it unwarranted, when they know they could very well be patted down? It's like a deer caught in headlights, you know it's coming and you could just simply walk away, but instead just stand there and take it.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


You aren't giving them permission at all. Pay close attention to Don't touch my junk video. He clearly states they are free to do a pat down, but if they touch him in a sexual location he will press charges. He's exercising his right not to be sexually assaulted.

"But he agreed by buying the ticket". It's coercion, like I said you have a right to travel by whatever ordinary means of the day exist (US Supreme Court). You may not place unlawful restrictions upon this right, such as forgoing one right to exercise another.

Which is exactly what they are doing, coercing you into sacrificing your right to be secure in your person in order to exercise the right to travel.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly


ASSAULTED THEM.


By buying the ticket, you are giving them permission. If these people really don't want to go through this stuff, all they have to do is not buy the ticket. So, again, how is it unwarranted, when they know they could very well be patted down? It's like a deer caught in headlights, you know it's coming and you could just simply walk away, but instead just stand there and take it.

That's exactly the point. Exactly.
Why should we have to put up with sexual assault if we HAVE to fly?
Why is this even an option?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AnotherCLou
 


The first time I saw this mentioned, I chuckled and continued on to the next post.

However, after giving it a bit of thought, I do believe that the idea has merit. If one were to completely disrobe prior to making the "scanner vs. groping" decision that person would be guilty of a misdemeanor along the lines of public lewdness or indecency.

It could be argued that this crime was committed in order to PREVENT the commission of a felony! Specifically the TSA agents would be prevented from committing either aggrevated assault (irradiation) or sexual assault (pat down) since there would be no reason for either type of screening as there would be, literally, nothing to hide.

Forming a "Naked Airline" would probably be unrealistic, but it would certainly give new meaning to "Fly the friendly skies!"



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I say we do this, get rid of all the screening crap and go back to pre-2000 security measures. Those people who want the additional security can elect to pay the higher prices and sacrifice their rights to be secure in order to fly on a separate aircraft, while the rest of us go on living our lives and exercising our rights without fear.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Damn good idea.

Let the cattle pay more to fly on Government Airlines while freedom loving people can engage in a private business contract with a non governmental airline without fear of governmental interference.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


I totally agree, we need a whole separate airline for those willing to be subjected to this. Pre 9/11 how many people died in highjackings? Not many.....this is all just a step by step process to take away all of our freedoms. And I really do think it's going to take one stupid person putting explosives in their hiney to make us all have to spread em before getting on a plane. And trust me, these won't be ordinary explosives and this won't be some radical Muslim, it will be Billy Joe Jim Bob from down the street that the CIA or whomever hires to do this and the explosives will be nothing more than firecrackers. But it will instill lot's of fear in the sheeple and there ya go...........BEND OVER BABY, I'M GONNA BE IN YOUR ARSE! OR YOU WON'T FLY



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join