TSA has met the enemy — and they are us

reply to post by Janky Red


Here is my thing: i don't fly often enough to worry about health concerns from scanners. BUT, that is only half the deal.

I am a very modest person. EXTREMELY modest. The thought of someone else gazing at my naked body really bothers me. Even more, the risk of someone running their hands on my body bothers me. I tell my kids to not allow a "Bad Touch". Why should I have to suffer through it?

Even more, there may or may not be specific rules that TSA agents should abide by. But they don't. And when they don't, my objection will end up with a possible night in jail, and a fine.

There is no freedom or liberty in this. Nowhere.

While i ran a call center, I had this employee with Hidradenitis Supperativa (maybe misspelled). It is common, and I bet most of you have some of this disease, too. It is basically a chronic infection in the sweat glands, usually infected by Staph, of which MRSA is also a member of.

What happens is you get anywhere from 1 to a few dozens "boils", usually in the armpit, crotch, or waistline. They tend to drain almost constantly, usually just an orange "serosanguinal" fluid. But often you get the gray/maroon pus that smells like rotting death.

This one employee missed work quite often, and would ruin chairs from the drainage. To a point we had to get a special arrangement for him.

The agony caused by rubbing up against these boils is supposed to be agonizing. White-hot pain. I would hate to be frisked by a hurried, frustrated TSA agent if I had this disease. We have all had a boil. It hurts. I couldn't imagine having 10 or more, or having them palpated by a screener.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Buddha,

Are you stating that you believe this man spent time in Pakistan, trained at a terrorist camp, navigated the International travel, stayed under the radar, stayed off the no-fly lists, and then still made such a terrible attempt at a bomb?

I've been reading materials on sites like Stratfor, and they (professional analysts) seem to be making a case that tradecraft like this is far from trivial. Going to Pakistan, admittedly, was the easiest part of that sad jerk's routine.

Why not just grab an attendant or two, open the door and start tossing people out?

Oh boy, that really sounds astonishingly naive... Try to toss me out some time and see what happens!

Why not just jump the fence, and sneak out there with some type of sabotage about half way down the runway?

Can you spell "surveillance"? It's a tricky word, I know.

When did a speed limit ever stop a criminal from speeding?

You would be surprised how many vicious criminals were apprehended in a process of traffic violation stop.

Why not hold up the line, get everyone stacked up, gathered around, and then detonate right there? No need to get on the plane!

I haven't heard of many terrestrial bombings that resulted in 300+ victims, however of course Madrid bombings came close at 191. Al Qaeda has fascination with aerial vehicles, although as Madrid and London show, that's not their only venue to conduct terror. You can't deny that destroying a plane is a much more dramatic act than a mundane IED, and drama is an integral part of terror.

If you just wanted to inflict more death on Americans, it would be easy for you to pay for advertisement space like billboards etc and advocate the use of tobacco. You'd probably kill more than 300 over a a year but no one would care.

reply to post by buddhasystem


"Surveillance" isn't that reliable, and I have personally wandered around on Airport grounds without ever being stopped or questioned. I have also parked within a couple hundred yards of the end of a runway, just outside a fence, had security come by and ask what I was doing, I swear this was my answer word for word, "I'm waiting for the FedEx jet to takeoff. I know it leaves at 11:35, and I like to watch it go." and they said, "OK, have a nice night." I guess some stranger in a pickup at the end of a runway with the flight schedule of a FedEx jet wasn't as suspicious as some Grandmother or Toddler that needed patted down and fondled?

Now, as for your example of criminals being apprehended during routine traffic stops, doesn't that prove my points in two ways? #1 It didn't stop them from speeding, so the law was ineffective. #2 They weren't hardened criminals intent on doing harm, because they voluntarily stopped and allowed themselves to be apprehended.

Nope. I absolutely stand by my points that the TSA regulations and restrictions do not make us one iota safer!

reply to post by captaintyinknots

So your idea to combat this is to give those in power an excuse to expand their power? You do know that civil disobedience will lead to even more security measures, right? And not just at the airport, but on the streets, in your home, at your kids school, everywhere. Very bad, bad idea.

Yeah and doing nothing will eventually lead to them stopping this madness... Sigh

reply to post by getreadyalready


It doesn't make us safer. You are right. It just makes some feel safer.

I honestly cannot believe that there are people here defending the "rope and grope" procedures of the TSA.

What if it were your wife? Your mom?

I really don't get it. I feel like i woke up in bizarro world. What happened in our nation?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Janky Red
People just look at the volume of these threads and the level of anger -

Actually if you really look at the threads ATS was leading the charge long before the Media stepped in..

I'm a regular listener to the Alex Jones show. About 4 weeks ago he began railing on this subject and kept at it every day since. About 2 weeks after he started Drudge began linking to articles on his site. Alex Jones is responsible for helping to start this current wave of protest. Drudge was a MAJOR contributor to creating this debate. As so many love to hate Jones on this site I have yet to see anyone give him credit, but as a close observer to the News, this site, Jones and many others I can definitively say Alex Jones tapped into this anger that already existed and started the snow ball rolling. I am sure many Jones haters will say not - but I do not lie - it is as I have said. Alex Jones started this.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


This appears to be a recurrent theme not only with this fraudulent company whose entire backbone is centered on greed, but also with the types of gov and Elitist heads who are increasingly showing their disdain towards the masses.

It is time for us all to step up, en-masse, and use civil disobedience and non-compliance to these types of disgusting, police-state, tyrannically invasive entities, and simply no longer cooperate or comply with them. Opt out of flying and use alternative means from now on.

I know I will be.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So your idea to combat this is to give those in power an excuse to expand their power?

You do know that civil disobedience will lead to even more security measures, right? And not just at the airport, but on the streets, in your home, at your kids school, everywhere.

Very bad, bad idea.

So I guess your solution is let them do it until the do the next which has already started. Trains , then buses then school, your job site , the mall, your church ad infinitum, until you won't be able to go to the bathroom without your papers.
I say stop the insanity now let the airlines sue tsa and airports for loss of revenue and things will start to turn around. After all would you pay for something you don't want or need? Well you already have!
Peace!
____________________________________________________________________
Memories and statements made to me from a German Holocaust survivor years ago.

reply to post by MegaMind


Even funnier, I have been seeing Alex Jones' site used as a "source" by people who, 2 months ago, would normally flame anyone who even admits to accidentally landing there.

I am no fan of Alex Jones. I see him as a slightly more crazy version of Glenn Beck. It is interesting to see this sudden flip. "The enemy of my enemy...."

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by buddhasystem


You can pat yourself on the should all you want. Truth is, you'll probably make a safer flight next time because none of the people on the plane didn't stick anything explosive in their underwear.

Really, what are the risks? Do you, personally, know anyone who has died on a plane crash? How about a plane crash caused by a terrorist?

A difference must be made between domestic and international flights. If we don't, then should we also start running checkpoints to ensure that people don't take car bombs into crowded markets?

It just does not follow. It really does not. You are a scientist. Apply some statistics to it. There is no return on investment here. Only humiliation. Unless we can find any examples from the previous decade that would warrant suspicion of attack via domestic flights....

Really.

What price for perceived safety? What next so Uncle Sugar can "keep us safe"? Maybe requiring people to show their "papers" every time they go across state lines?

This place is starting to look more like the old USSR and less like America to me.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


Today Obama declared that the TSA search and grope measures were needed to assure the public safety.

But he didn't comment on the obvious next question: "What if the public doesn't want it?"

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

"Surveillance" isn't that reliable, and I have personally wandered around on Airport grounds without ever being stopped or questioned.

Dude, you just keep ignoring the fact that what's happening in security operations is a
Bayesian Game. I'm not saying you should be a math wizard, it's just that if the enemy assets know that there is a fair chance of being caught, they may want to eschew this particular portal.

I have also parked within a couple hundred yards of the end of a runway, just outside a fence, had security come by and ask what I was doing, I swear this was my answer word for word, "I'm waiting for the FedEx jet to takeoff. I know it leaves at 11:35, and I like to watch it go." and they said, "OK, have a nice night."

...and look at you now! Same person who protests patdowns etc as violation of some rights etc, is using LOLZ when it comes to a case when security actually behaved in a responsible manner. That's just a little bit hypocritical. What you did was not illegal in any way, what did you expect to happen? If they detained you, you'd sue their pants off and then complain on ATS that the US has become a fascist state. There is just no way to appease you.

Now, as for your example of criminals being apprehended during routine traffic stops, doesn't that prove my points in two ways? #1 It didn't stop them from speeding, so the law was ineffective.

I don't like using the formulation "moronic argument", so I won't. Every law known to man has been broken at some point, is that a basis to declare all laws unnecessary and void???

#2 They weren't hardened criminals intent on doing harm, because they voluntarily stopped and allowed themselves to be apprehended.

If Ted Bundy was not a hardened criminal, I just don't know who was.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, I would like to consider all laws null and void. That would be a good start! There are 10 pretty good ones that pretty much say it all, and since we can't prosecute "coveting," "dis-honoring," and we don't want to mandate a certain religion, we can really get by enforcing about 3 or 4 of those 10!

As for the security acting "responsibly" I agree. But, if they are willing to ignore a scruffy guy in a pick up truck, with the flight schedules of departing aircraft, sitting at the end of the runway, then what is the point of patting down grandmas and toddlers before boarding? That was my point. There is a major flaw there! Who should be considered more of a risk? A 4 year old, shirtless, with several agents fondling around, or a suspicious character at the end of a runway?

BH, we often debate, and I like our opposite views on things, but I would feel much safer on an airplane with no patdown or scanner and 10 or 20 armed citizens, including myself. I don't feel 1 bit safe after being neutered, patted down, disarmed, disgruntled, inventoried, tagged, and shuffled into a tin can where I must trust my life in the hands of dozens of low-paid Federal employees and a couple of drunk pilots! How about we don't pat down or scan, we leave the cockpit door open so we can tell if the pilots are awake, and we let the passengers fend for themselves!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
what is the point of patting down grandmas and toddlers before boarding?

...so that somebody doesn't get an idea to give a lot of cough syrup to a grandma and stick a pack of C4 into her knitting kit.

Again, you missed the point about the game with incomplete information.

BH, we often debate, and I like our opposite views on things, but I would feel much safer on an airplane with no patdown or scanner and 10 or 20 armed citizens, including myself.

No offense, but every single post of yours just radiates almost admirable simplicity. Sure, you can pack your AK-47 on the plane but what good will it do when that knitting kit of that grandma sitting next to you goes off?

reply to post by buddhasystem


But we aren't doing anything now to keep that knitting kit from going off.

I have posted over and over; there are hundreds of combinations of chemicals that don't violate the 2 oz rule, could be brought on board in plain sight and combined for catastrophic consequences! There are existing explosives that could be hidden in body cavities, or swallowed. There are weapons that would not set off the scanners or metal detectors, there are runways literally adjacent to main roads where airplanes could be brought down with improvised weapons or well-placed bullets.

If the measures they were taking were effective, maybe I would feel different, but giving up my individual rights for a false sense of security just seems like a waste and an unnecessary risk. It might be simplistic, and I might have control issues, but if I get killed, I want to have some responsibility in it, I don't want to be a helpless sitting duck.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

But we aren't doing anything now to keep that knitting kit from going off.

We are trying to prevent C4 from getting into that kit, remember? We don't know whether we'll succeed, but the perps don't know that either. They do know we try, and that in itself is a countermeasure.

There are many proponents of firearms saying that various permits to carry, or having guns at home, lower crime rates. I'm not arguing either way, but you don't see constant gunfights in states that claim that extra safety. Perps don't try because they know there may be repercussions, even if not guaranteed. With YOUR logic, the fact that we don't see gunfights means that firearms don't do jack for your safety. And that's a very wrong kind of logic.

www.wnd.com...

Spreadin' the glove: TSA infecting U.S.?
Latex coverings 'have been in crotches, armpits, touching people who may be ill'

The article mentions ATS and this thread

[Important] TSA and Venereal Disease and YOU!,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So in the interest of 'keeping us safe' they treat people with no dignity and risk spread of disease.

The TSA's own website has cases listed of scabies infections spread by their searches

Oh the price we pay for a little safety

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Today Obama declared that the TSA search and grope measures were needed to assure the public safety.

Why would anyone expect any less from him? The whole plan since 9/11 has been to entrench DHS firmly into place and convince us that Al-Qaeda is every where. Yet Timothy McVeigh was not Al-Qaeda, neither was the guy who spread the Anthrax... and the shoe and panty bombers... both self claimed Al-Qaeda One a Jamaican British citizen and the other a Black..

So Al-Qaeda really has foreign wannabes in their core?

Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 even the FBI is not looking for him for that

The 'war' in Iraq... well we called that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" We were not there for our safety

WMD's? right... that went well

Can't find bin Laden? Has anyone looked at that resort where they kept Noriega? After all bin Laden was a business partner of the Bush Family and other family members lived in the USA like in Las Vegas and New York
news.bbc.co.uk...

Is it not interesting that while all plans were grounded, the bin Laden family was somehow flown out of Las Vegas?

And just 'what if" that whole 9/11 thing WAS an inside job? IF that happened as many people now believe, then all this followup makes sense.

The whole thing is a set up to make you compliant. My parents lived through this same process when the NAZI took power in Germany... people then said the same thing... "its nothing... its for our own good"... Well we see where that got us.

My parents immigrated to Canada when I was 7. I came to the USA... I said "That could never happen here"

Seems I was wrong

reply to post by zorgon


Oh I just lost my appetite! Imagine, Thanksgiving dinner with this on your mind!
Thanks for posting that Zorgon, just gave patriotic decor to Exuberant!

Now...that is really disturbing! They should have to use new gloves each and every time!
Where is the health department, where is the CDC???

A VERY interesting point was made in another thread on the TSA

These scans and pat downs are ONLY being done internally... they are NOT scanning people coming INTO the country..

So an Islamabomber or similar malcontent could still get on a plane in Europe, Middle East or Asia and nothing would stop them...

So tell me again its not 'citizen control'