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.

 

TSA gropes young boy's testicles while he is strip searched in front of everyone

page: 35
173
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Your brain is needed in the other TSA threads.

Don't let it get distracted with this one. You have already crushed utterly your primary opponent here.





posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
found this so i thougth id share

arstechnica.com...

have fun
edit on 24-11-2010 by zerbot565 because: Adam Savage: TSA saw my junk, missed 12" razor blades



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Your response to that post is here, where you whine about how long the answer is.


Please try again and try harder. I never once complained that your answer was too long. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you. My words are static and yet your interpretation of them is not. How does that happen? I will try one last time. You have still not answered my one simple question, you know, with an actual answer. I know you responded to it, you did not answer it. If you are still confused, take the post you claim is my whining about an answer being too long and have someone explain it to you.

I thought it was a simple question that you were so eager to show off your vast intelligence and knowledge in tackling but I still do not actually see even one answer. There is no overly lengthy and complicated answer and now succinct answer.

Now, you seem bent on bickering and getting emotional about this. I just wanted a logical answer to a logical question. I am not looking to play your game.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Your brain is needed in the other TSA threads.

Don't let it get distracted with this one. You have already crushed utterly your primary opponent here.





I wondered how long it would be before you showed up again, if utterly crushed involves telling me numerous times I've been "owned" and stating nonsensical facts about the definition of what is defined as sexual abuse then yes I have been crushed....



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish

Originally posted by nenothtu
Your response to that post is here, where you whine about how long the answer is.


Please try again and try harder. I never once complained that your answer was too long. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you. My words are static and yet your interpretation of them is not. How does that happen? I will try one last time. You have still not answered my one simple question, you know, with an actual answer. I know you responded to it, you did not answer it. If you are still confused, take the post you claim is my whining about an answer being too long and have someone explain it to you.

I thought it was a simple question that you were so eager to show off your vast intelligence and knowledge in tackling but I still do not actually see even one answer. There is no overly lengthy and complicated answer and now succinct answer.

Now, you seem bent on bickering and getting emotional about this. I just wanted a logical answer to a logical question. I am not looking to play your game.


Here's your post, so you can re-read what YOU have written:


Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I am not really sure I see the answer in there but with the length of your response, maybe I missed it? I thought it would be a little more brief. Who do we target with extra special searches? I appologize if my question was not clear.


I bolded the part you appear to have forgotten writing. In another of your posts, you write this, again complaining about my "too long" answers:



So out of all these lengthy posts, all you can come up with is bulky jackets and then just say it is part of an array of things to look for.


To continually insist that you haven't done so is disingenous to all of us. We can read what you write.

You try to keep the mark moving by changing the question after an answer, hoping no one will notice, and then whine that your question isn't answered. You can't figure out if your question is "who do we search?" or "what do they look like?" It really doesn't matter, since BOTH questions have been answered, and whether you like the answers or not, they're there.

It's not difficult for me, nor am I getting "emotional". As a matter of fact, I haven't gotten "emotional" in well over 10 years. The difficulty appear to be all yours.

So then, WHO is it playing games? Not I, and I'm done watching YOU play them. Run along now, and have a nice life.




edit on 2010/11/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It looks like there was to me. If that TSA agent was not screening that kid, would his shirt have been off? Then i don't care WHO took it off. It was removed because of the TSA.


This thread is insanity from page one on. This is exactly the kind of hyperbolic wolf crying that is going to get legit complaints ushered into the tinfoil hat corner. You obviously are not even interested what really happened or logic.


Originally posted by shiman
reply to post by kyrebelyell2004
 


Look for a longer video. The extra security was because they didnt trust the father, who took the shirt off when the TSA agent was asking the father not to. Also, they arent "groping" in this video, rather a quick pat. This kid's testicles were not groped, and he was not stripped, no thanks to the father.


I underlined the part I thought might help you most re-evaluate your position.


Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Your brain is needed in the other TSA threads.

Don't let it get distracted with this one. You have already crushed utterly your primary opponent here.



Which thread are you reading?
edit on 24-11-2010 by Cassandra5Finish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I am not sure what your native tongue is but my English writing seems to be confusing you. I never once whined or complained that your response was too long. The example you provided proves that. What I did say was that for all that writing you did, there was still not an answer. I critiqued the fact that you made your responses overly long without actually saying anyting in the way of an actual answer.

Not whining they were too long.
Complaining it was a lot of empty words.

Better luck next time.

p.s. You still have not answered my simple question. It is clear you do not intend to. I think it is time for you to move along as all I wanted was the answer, not a lifelong friendship sans answer. Thanks
edit on 24-11-2010 by Cassandra5Finish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish



Which thread are you reading?
edit on 24-11-2010 by Cassandra5Finish because: (no reason given)


and this, my friend, is why I don't care to provide you an answer either.
You have been just as willfully obtuse as Kron (strangely, this is not the first time I have seen him behave in this manner).

Someone way back on page 1 posted the point in the video which matters.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
“Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed.” - Chuck Palahniuk

lalalala la lalala



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Some of you are the exact variety of people that steal the legitimacy of websites such as ATS. NOTHING in that video displays any sexual misconduct. The child, nor the father behaves as though it were. If anything I would expect them too being as...THEY WERE ACTUALLY THERE!

Some of you are the people who have innocent, bewildered people brought up on charges because they accidentally brushed against you. Your response is, "Oh my God, that guy/girl just raped me!"



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I think this fits the zeitgeist just right.
Please check it out, spread it and feel free to comment. Now is the time for people to rise again!




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Some of you are the exact variety of people that steal the legitimacy of websites such as ATS. NOTHING in that video displays any sexual misconduct. The child, nor the father behaves as though it were. If anything I would expect them too being as...THEY WERE ACTUALLY THERE!

Some of you are the people who have innocent, bewildered people brought up on charges because they accidentally brushed against you. Your response is, "Oh my God, that guy/girl just raped me!"


Read the protocols for a TSA "pat down". Then explain what in those protocols seems relevant to a 4 year old Anglo child. You can say it was to protect "national security", and to that I will answer "From what? Pokemon and Power Rangers?"

This establishes that there was no just cause to be laying hands on that child.

Around 24 seconds in, you see the screener put his hand on the boys lower back. This is to brace him from behind for the pressure being applied on the front, out of camera view. What lies directly in front of that screeners hand, on the front side? It isn't his feet.

So the protocols insinuate what is happening, and the video evidence supports the use of these protocols.

Edit to add: interesting that we have lost a troll from this thread this morning. Makes you wonder about the kind of folks who defend the TSA and what happened in the OP.
edit on 24-11-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassandra5Finish
 


Re-evaluate my position? Please evaluate.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Has it ever been your JOB to pat people down? You know there are circumstances when this is needed right?

If you have ever patted someone down, did it stimulate you sexually?

I have patted down, and been patted down, on many occassions and sex is the last thing on anyones mind. If anything many times the person doing the patting needs to be given a weak smile to pick their day up.

Point blank, kids are frequently used as mules. It's only a matter of time before it happens and casualties are taken here.

Americans are very spoiled, it's like we want our cake and to eat it too. We've become accustomed to being immune to terrorism. We don't fully understand what it means. We want to be safe, but we don't want the measures it takes to make us safe. We want total freedom, but that is impossible in a world where borders are merely spoken.

We are like the family that moves from Montana to Miami. In Montana they were accustomed to leaving all of their doors and windows open, even while sleep. We can imagine how that goes in Miami however. So I guess the wife would be b.tching to her husband about why must they lock their house like they're prisoners now. The husband looks at her like "duh, we don't live in Kansas anymore". You have to adapt to your climate.

The only other thing I notice is where you keep stating "anglo kid". So is the situation that you are furious there isn't any reverse profiling happening? That when Anglo people go through the lines they aren't given the "good ol boy" wink, nod and wave through?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Has it ever been your JOB to pat people down? You know there are circumstances when this is needed right?


Yes, when there is probable cause to place me in custody. Is the fact that I am in an airport probable cause? Can we also just pull over every third car that drives down I-10, since it is a major drug route? The Supreme Court would say we can't, as that is "profiling".

The idiocy of the logic astounds me.




If you have ever patted someone down, did it stimulate you sexually?


No. But I have also had a bunch of little girls swimming at my house without any sexual stimulation. Too bad I am not a snapshot of humanity...things may be less twisted and disturbing.



I have patted down, and been patted down, on many occasions and sex is the last thing on anyones mind. If anything many times the person doing the patting needs to be given a weak smile to pick their day up.


I worked a drunk tank in a homeless shelter in Ft Worth as a volunteer when I was a teenager. I have patted down plenty of drunks that smelled of urine and vomit. I can understand the sentiment.

But we are not talking about the intent of the screener. We are talking about the perception of the victim. Do you like having a stranger touch you in areas that only your wife/girlfriend touches you? Do you want this done in front of everyone in the security area? Because if you do, that is fine. I don't. And I don't want to live in a country that makes it a prerequisite to travel. Of course, I can refuse to fly. But my employer will quickly tire of paying me $1000 in mileage for trips that would only cost $300 in airfare (my recent trip to LA). So this puts me in a position where I must either surrender my liberty and privacy, or my employment and livelihood.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and I must ask myself if the Pilgrims sought to establish a nation where one must be fondled before being allowed passage for travel.



Point blank, kids are frequently used as mules. It's only a matter of time before it happens and casualties are taken here.


And you want to live forever? Do you have a right to being assured absolute security at all times? Is that really a constitutional function of our government? It seems more fit for a nanny state like the UK, than the US.

All sorts of crazy stuff MIGHT happen. You cannot plan for every contingency. And if you are going to start violating the rights, privacy, and liberty of the American people (in contradiction to the Constitution), then you had best have a better reason than some far flung scenario that MIGHT happen.

You do realize that you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, right? Risk mitigation should not account for risks that are less likely to occur than the lottery. Especially when we do not even bother to look at the southern border, where kids and adults alike can just walk back and forth freely, without a Gate Rape. Do you not see the lunacy here? None of it makes sense.



Americans are very spoiled, it's like we want our cake and to eat it too. We've become accustomed to being immune to terrorism. We don't fully understand what it means. We want to be safe, but we don't want the measures it takes to make us safe. We want total freedom, but that is impossible in a world where borders are merely spoken.


I don't want total freedom. I want total liberty. There is a difference. I am willing to assume some reasonable risk. But if there are more people killed in simple airline crashes than terror attacks every year, then I have to wonder if we are even looking in the right areas, or if the government might just be using this as a way to roll back more and more of our liberty. It just does not pass the sniff test.



We are like the family that moves from Montana to Miami. In Montana they were accustomed to leaving all of their doors and windows open, even while sleep. We can imagine how that goes in Miami however. So I guess the wife would be b.tching to her husband about why must they lock their house like they're prisoners now. The husband looks at her like "duh, we don't live in Kansas anymore". You have to adapt to your climate.


Lock your doors. But don't Gate Rape people who are visiting. Prudent response, not over reaction. Logic, not fear.



The only other thing I notice is where you keep stating "anglo kid". So is the situation that you are furious there isn't any reverse profiling happening? That when Anglo people go through the lines they aren't given the "good ol boy" wink, nod and wave through?


No, i am upset because there is absolutely zero, zilch, nada precedence to see a 4 year old toehead as a threat to national security. it is a waste of time, money, resources, and liberty suppression. It is the exact same as doing a sobriety test on a 4 year old out with his parents at a public concert. How about we just don't do that particular screening selection in the future, and then we may not have to hire those 5000 additional TSA agents?
edit on 24-11-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
reply to post by Cassandra5Finish
 


Re-evaluate my position? Please evaluate.



This troll has been banned.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


I agree but just wait....what's next? A mall gets bombed and we all have to expose our genitals before shopping, a sports arena, your work place, where does it end? I see this as only the beginning.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Not to mention that teaching a child about "stranger danger" and "bad touching" just got way more complicated:




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SunshineLaws
 


That is a piece of parody art by some French artist.

HOWEVER, it was photographed as the desktop screen at a TSA screeners computer.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I found it when googling political cartoons about the issue. I didn't know about it being used by a TSA agent. Can you post a link to the story? I'd like to read it.



new topics

top topics



 
173
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join