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 Nabs Suspected Al Queda Terrorist At O'Hare International Airport

page: 11
60
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by boncho
 


You obviously saw something that I did not see or we interpret what we saw differently. You saw molestation where I saw a search and no groping. I wonder how many children go through these check points every day that do not cry.


So if a child cries that's a marker if it is wrong or not? I wouldn't want a strangers hand on my kids for any reason. It's not something that they should get accustomed to or have to deal with, simple as that.


Then perhaps you should plan to never take your children to an emergency room, or to a dentist, or to a nursery school where workers may or may not be a stranger and may have to check their little behinds for dirty diapers, pick them up to comfort them if they are crying and so forth? We subject children to a "stranger's hands" on more than one occassion in day to day life. In this case, the parents made a decision to subject the child to a stranger's hands, (everybody knows these days what goes on at airports), now they want to complain about it?

Lot of doublespeak in this thread.

Whether we take them to an airport or have to take them to




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by MattNC
Holy overreaction people.

That agent was doing their job and I think it was handled the best way possible. This is the world we live in. If you want to travel by air, you have to accept this. You think extremists wouldn't use any method they could think to slip by security? Guess again.

I had my, then, 4 and 7 year with me on a plane trip a few years ago after 9-11. We got selected for random search, all 3 of us. I told my kids before the search that the guards needed our help to keep everyone safe on the plane by practicing searching. I went first to show is was easy and safe. No ogling, no groping, nothing perverse happened to my kids. I was standing within arms length of my kids the entire process. Was it a hassle? Yes. But the only thing we "lost" was 10 minutes of our that we have spent just sitting on the airplane waiting to take off.

You people are out of your minds to say anything inappropriate went on. You all are making it sounds like they strip-searched the kid in a private room without the parent being present.


Great job. I applaud you. The way you are leading your children and showing them that everything is A-OK. It is just fine to have these people go through your things and rub you down because it KEEPS YOU SAFE! Let this be a lesson to the child in the video, your children and all children of the world. These things are necessary I tell you. If we don't do it the terrorists will be blowing up planes every day. I just don't understand why we don't have more of this at bus stations and train stations. Heck, we should even be looking for people entering major metropolitan areas in private vehicles because you never know when one of those sneaky al-qaeda ppl will blast the place to pieces, or worse. I say, good on you! Way to show them how to work within the system and, above all, STAY SAFE!


If we wanted to fly on that plane to see grandparents, we had to do our part in keeping everyone safe. It was easy to understand, even for young kids. You seem to struggle with it.

Do you have other means of traveling 1000 miles in 4 hours for the same price and less "hassle" that I need to be aware of? Please share so we all can know.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
Excellent job of trying to distract from the valid and logical points I made.

Typical.


Valid and logical point you made? You only actually made one good point. The rest are more of opinion based on nothing. The problem with people who seek attention is that sometimes they get it. So let us take a peek at your "valid and logical points" shall we?


Originally posted by backwherewestarted
1) Where is the "molestation" by "perverts" that the hysterical people are crying about?

2) Yes, we "know" terrorists never use children.


3) I am glad the father is more concerned with recording rather then just being a good dad.

4) I can imagine what this forum would have been like if they had caught the underwear bomber at security.

Get a grip.
edit on 19-3-2012 by backwherewestarted because: (no reason given)


1. This is the only decent point you make. There is no molestation by perverts in the video. That being said, I never claimed that there was any perverts in this particular video. What we are seeing is a small child, who is injured being scared to death by TSA. Just watch that whole video and see the "threat" who needs to be investigated. A small boy in a body cast and a very old women with a cane. Who are we trying to kid here? Can you show me one example, just one, where a "terrorist" was an old women or a small child in a body cast and they hijacked or otherwise brought a plane down?

2. "Terrorist" have used children in the past. That part is not debatable. What is debatable is the response to this perceived threat. Children have been used as decoys and they have been used as suicide bombers. However, these children according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are not toddlers, they are between the ages of 11 and 18. This is something we have seen in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, we have not seen it elsewhere. However, if you can show me one example of this tactic being used on white American children, I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong.
Source

3. How is the Father not being a "good Dad"? He is not allowed to touch or go near his child during the screening. If you do, you have to start the process all over again. This is a matter of TSA policy. The most this Father can do, is exactly what he is doing. Standing off to the side and reassuring his child that everything is ok, and video recording the procedure for his own protection.

4. I addressed this point. The truth is, the underwear bomber could have been caught through security if he was not lead past security by someone with enough power to cause Airport Security to violate their own procedures and allow him onto the plane.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
1. This is the only decent point you make. There is no molestation by perverts in the video. That being said, I never claimed that there was any perverts in this particular video. What we are seeing is a small child, who is injured being scared to death by TSA. Just watch that whole video and see the "threat" who needs to be investigated. A small boy in a body cast and a very old women with a cane. Who are we trying to kid here? Can you show me one example, just one, where a "terrorist" was an old women or a small child in a body cast and they hijacked or otherwise brought a plane down?


Scared to death? Puh-lease. Something tells me he won't need therapy over this incident down the road. Well, maybe he will, because his lovely parents had to go and make it a Thing by sticking it on YouTube. I bet their Grr! frowns of indignation were hard to see underneath their Starbuck's lattes.

In any case, please look up the word RANDOM. It seems to be an amazingly hard word to comprehend in this thread.



2. "Terrorist" have used children in the past. That part is not debatable. What is debatable is the response to this perceived threat. Children have been used as decoys and they have been used as suicide bombers. However, these children according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are not toddlers, they are between the ages of 11 and 18. This is something we have seen in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, we have not seen it elsewhere. However, if you can show me one example of this tactic being used on white American children, I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong.


First you say it's not debatable that children have been used, and then you go on to debate how that doesn't matter and IS debatable because hey, these are Americans! Fail, bro.

And again, please look up today's word RANDOM.



3. How is the Father not being a "good Dad"? He is not allowed to touch or go near his child during the screening. If you do, you have to start the process all over again. This is a matter of TSA policy. The most this Father can do, is exactly what he is doing. Standing off to the side and reassuring his child that everything is ok, and video recording the procedure for his own protection.


I wouldn't say he's not being a good dad, I'd say he's being a lousy American. Because just as soon as he put down his latte he was off to post the whole sordid affair on YouTube. "Look what these bastard TSA agents made my son go through! Grr! Grr! Much gnashing of teeth!"

Expect a possible Lifetime made-for-TV movie deal out of this horror, or at the very least a lawsuit.



Remember, kids, today's word is RANDOM.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal


2. "Terrorist" have used children in the past. That part is not debatable. What is debatable is the response to this perceived threat. Children have been used as decoys and they have been used as suicide bombers. However, these children according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are not toddlers, they are between the ages of 11 and 18. This is something we have seen in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, we have not seen it elsewhere. However, if you can show me one example of this tactic being used on white American children, I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong.
Source


So you want to wait until a child younger than 11 is used to blow something up until they start checking all ages? You think someone with bad intentions will say "We'll sneak the bomb past them by using this 10 year old girl.... oh wait.... that violates the 11-year-old-rule. Darn it... I guess we can't blow it up then."

And in case you missed it, it's been about 11 years since the "no terrorism in America" rule expired.
edit on 21-3-2012 by MattNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoxMulder91
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


Yes, im sure that guy truly get off on checking children for bombs and weapons....(I really dont see that being the case)

Are you suggesting all kids should be allowed to go on planes without being checked?

Cheers





YES . What are the Mathamatical Odds that a Child would be Used as a Terrorist Weapon to Blow Up an Airliner ? What are the Same Odds that a 90 Year Old Handicapped Woman in a Wheelchair would Also be used as a Terrorist Weapon to Blow Up an Airliner ? Would You Personally be Willing to Give Up your Freedom to Travel based on the Mathamatical Odds of those two Instances ever happening at All ? If so , Please Answer ...Baa...........



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Oh dear. It seems people think it's all about odds now.

Well what are the odds that ANY one flight is going to be hijacked by a terrorist? Let's just get rid of security screening altogether!

And what are the odds that a pilot may become incapacitated during a flight? Let's get rid of the copilot as well!

And what are the odds that any redundant onboard system will fail? Let's get rid of the backups!

Think of how much money could be saved if we all lived life according to odds. No seatbelts, no spare tires, no back up generators, no AAA service, no car insurance, no medical insurance, no emergency drills, no fire departments.....



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 


What are the Odds against you Dropping Dead for Any Reason Tomorrow ? My Point is , Living in a Constant State of F-E-A-R of the " What If " , is Not Living at All . If People are Sooo Affraid of Not Being Safe every Nanosecond of their Lives , maybe they sould go live in a Cave somewhere away from other People that they somehow Imagine Might do them Harm . Man has Survived for Hundreds of Thousands of Years on this Earth without the Help of the " Nanny State " , what makes us Any Different Today ?............Geez.........



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by camus154
 


What are the Odds against you Dropping Dead for Any Reason Tomorrow ? My Point is , Living in a Constant State of F-E-A-R of the " What If " , is Not Living at All . If People are Sooo Affraid of Not Being Safe every Nanosecond of their Lives , maybe they sould go live in a Cave somewhere away from other People that they somehow Imagine Might do them Harm . Man has Survived for Hundreds of Thousands of Years on this Earth without the Help of the " Nanny State " , what makes us Any Different Today ?............Geez.........


But most people AREN'T afraid. They're not afraid of being molested at the airport, they're not afraid of someone giggling at their naked scanned body image, they're not afraid of their constitutional rights being eroded by TSA. Most people just want to get through security as quickly as possible so they can get on with their lives.

Aren't these the very same people that are thought of as "sheep"?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154
Actually, AlienStalker, you're wrong. The US Supreme Court ruled they ARE constitutional, hence why they even happen!

And please...ad hominems trying to say someone who doesn't agree with you is not a "true" patriot and belongs in the company of child molesters is despicable behavior. As a freedom loving patriot such as yourself, I would expect you to understand what freedom of speech and expression means, even if you don't like it!

Lastly, enough with the slippery slope arguments, which seems to be all that any of you who are bellyaching about the loss of our freedoms can rely on. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and thus, your reasoning can be dismissed outright.

Calm down and take a stress pill, Dave. A DUI checkpoint in your city doesn't mean you'll soon be marching off to the gas chamber. I promise.


I don't care what the corrupted SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, I care what the original constitution states on the issue, I don't need life time members of the government to tell me how to interpret the constitution which is VERY CLEAR in it's wording on the issue of search and seizure.

As far as DUI checkpoints go,
The 4th Amendment in short states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Your car is an effect of yours, the police have NO WARRANT issued to search all these individuals, who are also NOT NAMED on a warrant that was never issued....you can go the probable cause route, but again....THEY ARE PULLING EVERYONE OVER.

I state again, DUI checkpoints are 100% unconstitutional, as are many other laws, and rules in effect in this country that the supreme court uphold against the rights of the people (you and me).

You must volunteer to be searched in this manner as it is an illegal search, you can always simply opt out of the search by being non compliant (bet you did not know that). Of course this will not save you from a moronic cop hell bent on making you submit to his authority.

Have a camera with you at all times (piggies squirm when they know they are being taped)
Answer NO questions being thrown at you (5th amendment)
If you are arrested by an overzealous cop (and of course you are not really drunk) your lawyer will have areal easy time getting you off the hook.

If you do feel like talking to the cop the only things you should say are;


"What is your name and badge number?"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I free to go"

TSA is a whole other area of the law since they are a private security firm for private industry, where as police ARE public servants, despite what they may think, and are working on behalf of said public.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienStalker
 


Actually, I have to star you for this response...pretty practical.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join