TexasCHLforum.com

schufflerbot wrote:i am going to respectfully remove myself from this discussion because it has become apparent that i've upset quite a few people. that was NEVER my intent, i was not trying to ridicule anyone and the 'lol' acronyms are there because i was genuinely enjoying the conversation - as i thought others were.

it has come to my attention that this is not the case and again, i apologize if i have offended anyone. i will not be joining threads like this in the future.

Just so you know, I'm not offended by any of your postings --obviously I disagree with you, but nothing you said upset or offended me. My comment about "lol" was just to point out that given the lack of visual and vocal cues in internet "conversations," many expressions that might be clear in an actual conversation are open to interpretation. After you expressed a concern about things becoming personal I was pointing out that your remarks could also be interpreted as "personal" --precipitating a personal response.

schufflerbot wrote:lol what?

schufflerbot wrote:what that statement meant: if a terrorist has a specific plane they want to destroy - i'd bet they, when given a choice between a crowd at the airport and the plane itself in the air, would choose to take out their original target.

OK, one final try: when this hypothetical terrorist gets scanned, sets off an alarm, and a TSA agent approaches to pat her down, or escort her somewhere else for a pat down, the choice of taking out the plane in the air no longer exists. At that point, the choice is detonate or go to prison.

schufflerbot wrote:don't make assumptions about what i do or do not believe, this thread has turned into me playing the role of devil's advocate which i have stated several times.

I have no idea what you believe, beyond the remarks you've made here, so any assumptions I'm making about what you believe are inferences from your remarks. Take your remark above for instance: you either don't understand the choices presented, you believe there is a choice that doesn't exist (addressed in my comment above), or you believe that confronted with the choice of detonate now or go to prison, the putative suicide bomber is going to choose to go to prison, or detonate after TSA has moved her to a less lethal location.

schufflerbot wrote:don't make it personal, i'm just indulging the masses while the work day drudges on.

You say not to make it personal, but you begin your replies with things like "lol." Maybe it's a generational thing, but in my experience, when someone isn't trying to be funny, and in the context of a serious discussion, "laughter" comes off as ridicule, and ridicule is rather personal.

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:I'm not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

That's certainly not what I read in his post. But even if he thought the "agent investigated accordingly" I have to disagree. You have a machine that says someone may have explosives on them the kind of search they conducted was suicidal. In fact, the entire process is a suicidal process, since it makes no provision whatsoever for the possibility that the alarm is real.

lol

read the OP again, then!

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Exactly. She set off an explosives alarm. How does taking her to a private room accomplish anything? If she was a suicide bomber they'd never get her to a private room, she'd simply detonate the bomb as soon as she thought she was going to get additional screening: boom, dead TSA agents and dead airline passengers.

Your dictionary citation is amusing. You say don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately' then provide a definition that says: Accordingly --in a way that is appropriate to the "particular circumstances." I repeat, using your definition: what TSA did was not appropriate to the particular circumstances --those particular circumstances being an alarm indicating that someone might be carrying a bomb. Furthermore, TSA doesn't even have a process or procedure that is appropriate to those particular circumstances.

and again i ask, what alternative does TSA have to isolating the potential threat? it accomplishes the same thing a bomb squad would... getting the bomb away from people or getting people away from the bomb. not sure why youre hung up on them taking her to a room and searching her. if she were a suicide bomber and just out to take out a huge crowd, there's really no stopping her in the first place, right? but if she's attempting to make a political statement by detonating a certain plane, or any plane over a certain area and needs to have the bomb on the plane, then it's a pretty good bet she's going to try to wait. moreover, if she's just out to blow up a crowd... why would a suicide bomber select an airport security terminal? why not a baseball game?

and the definition is perfect... the appropriate action after the alarm went off would be to investigate.

the OP didn't think it was appropriate, that's what i meant.

You are desperate to believe things that have no basis is reality. Where is TSA isolating any threat? And she's gonna wait? For what --her new prison cell? I'm hung up on the room? YOU'RE the one who was talking about taking people to a private room to be searched. You're a Jihadist, a suicide bomber that intends to kill yourself in a bomb blast, but because your plan didn't work out exactly like you wanted, you're just going to let TSA detain you, take your bomb, and put you in prison for the rest of your life? You seriously believe this? You seriously can't tell the difference between setting out to blow up a specific plane and then settling for whoever you can take out in the airport when you get caught?

OK, you win, I give up.

schufflerbot wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:

schufflerbot wrote: the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.

how do you know they aren't bomb proof?

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

I'd look the stroller over very carefully, and have the person wait over to the side being watched very carefully. I would not make a person take off their clothes when I had 0 reason to believe they had anything under them. Knowing the limitations of the test that I was running (and that it mistakes glycerin for something else) I would then move on with my day.

then im glad you're not a TSA agent!! lol

you're literally writing that you would want a TSA agent to look at a woman and because they think, 'nah - she probably doesn't have any explosives, even though the alarm went off' just let her get on the plane?!?

that's incredible.

And you want them to go, she may have explosives, so let's cause her to set them off and kill all us TSA agents and any of the passengers that are in the blast radius waiting to be screened. The fact is, American moms aren't rigging their babies with explosives, and out of all these alarms that have triggered these intrusive searches, not a single mom, granny, or baby has been found rigged with a bomb. If it makes you feel better to believe that the TSA is making you safe by searching mom's, babies, and grannies for bombs, then by all means, take that comfort where you can get it. However, your desire to believe is not going to stop an actual terrorist from killing people. I'm more in tune with our Founders, like Franklin, who said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

schufflerbot wrote:i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

Well, I've never seen any in any airport I've ever been to. There is a line full of people waiting to pass through screening and no blast protection of any kind. You're not seriously trying to contend that the hypothetical terrorist is going to wait to detonate themselves until the TSA has walked them to some kind of private room, are you? Seriously? The INSTANT any such suicide bomber thinks they've been detected they'll set themselves off --right there where the TSA agents are and the passengers are lined up for screening. In fact, smart terrorists might put a bomber at the front and the middle or back of the line too, rigged to set off both bombs if either one is detected.

schufflerbot wrote:everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

Well, not everyone. However, you seem to be deliberately trying to muddy the water when you use the word "contraband." We're not talking about someone packing cocaine, we're talking about explosives. Current TSA actions can isolate the threat of cocaine but they do nothing for the threat of suicide bombers.

How do you handle someone if they've really got a bomb? You isolate those waiting from those being screened and the screeners. There are a variety of ways to do this, but of course, for it to really work, you'd have screen people before they congregate inside the airport....in other words, through multiple outside access points because the system you use has to be designed to minimize causalities --there's not so much point in a suicide bombing that kills one or two people. But really, in the end, all you can do is deflect attacks to softer targets. The thing is, there are plenty of soft targets in this country and no attacks. The threat is greatly over-hyped.

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:I'm not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

That's certainly not what I read in his post. But even if he thought the "agent investigated accordingly" I have to disagree. You have a machine that says someone may have explosives on them the kind of search they conducted was suicidal. In fact, the entire process is a suicidal process, since it makes no provision whatsoever for the possibility that the alarm is real.

lol

read the OP again, then!

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Exactly. She set off an explosives alarm. How does taking her to a private room accomplish anything? If she was a suicide bomber they'd never get her to a private room, she'd simply detonate the bomb as soon as she thought she was going to get additional screening: boom, dead TSA agents and dead airline passengers.

Your dictionary citation is amusing. You say don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately' then provide a definition that says: Accordingly --in a way that is appropriate to the "particular circumstances." I repeat, using your definition: what TSA did was not appropriate to the particular circumstances --those particular circumstances being an alarm indicating that someone might be carrying a bomb. Furthermore, TSA doesn't even have a process or procedure that is appropriate to those particular circumstances.

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Now I just don't understand the part I highlighted in red. You seem to be saying the metal detectors were not a deterrent. How could this happen daily, can you explain? First day, everyone caught with a weapon is expelled from school, and those with the illegal weapons, like guns, are arrested....might be a few hold outs on the second day, but it seems like by the time the end of the week rolled around all the idiots would be gone so there wouldn't be anything to find.

what i meant was, people walk through these metal detectors on a daily basis, every time they enter the school. KNOWING these things are there and that they will have to walk through them still didn't stop the occasional idiot. no, weapons were not found daily - only occasionally. the police would actually arrest the person, then hold them until class change so they could parade them in cuffs across the commons area as an example.

OK, guess I'm missing something --these are different people being caught or the same people being caught more than once? It seems like the thinning process should just take a little longer, and there might be someone new getting caught up on occasion.

schufflerbot wrote:I'm not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

That's certainly not what I read in his post. But even if he thought the "agent investigated accordingly" I have to disagree. You have a machine that says someone may have explosives on them the kind of search they conducted was suicidal. In fact, the entire process is a suicidal process, since it makes no provision whatsoever for the possibility that the alarm is real.

schufflerbot wrote:

7075-T7 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:Timothy McVeigh was an american

Then should we have the TSA do searches on every vehicle before it's allowed into a city because they might be filled with ANFO? Not to mention full-cavity searching the driver.

my point is, you cannot assume that just because someone is an american they would never do harm to another american... as the quoted poster implies.

just as we have to lump all strangers into the 'potential threat until proven otherwise' category, TSA must assume that all flyers have bombs and guns until probed and proven otherwise.

Neither what I said or implied. I highlighted it in red for you in another post, and mamabearcali makes essentially the same point in different words. Your comparison is apples and oranges.

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:That said, imagine how you would feel if your wife and child were on a plane and because the TSA did not investigate a positive alarm, some skell hijacked the flight, or, blew it up.

Where's the logic in that statement? You think the TSA really believed she had explosives?

I don't know what the TSA people were thinking because I wasn't there, and I ain't one of 'em.

However, I have seen pre-teens used to deliver explosives before (Vietnam 70-71) - if it happened there, it COULD happen here.

I think you're forgetting a key difference: you were in a FORIEGN country, fighting a war against a FOREIGN population, on one side of a CIVIL WAR. To them you were a FOREIGN enemy. You're also ignoring huge cultural differences, but let's go ahead and ignore them: this is America --American parents aren't strapping bombs on American pre-teens, and just what enemy do you think American parents would be fighting by strapping bombs on their children to blow up airplanes? Seriously, if this is really a problem --if Americans are strapping bombs on their children in order to blow them up with a bunch of other people on a plane-- then the WOT is over, and we lost. But they aren't.

Furthermore, I didn't ask you what the TSA was thinking in that particular instance because it's irrelevant and I don't care. To use your comparison, if you really believe it is like back in Nam' and bombs on grandmas and pre-teens are a serious threat, would you approach someone a machine told you might be carrying a bomb and stick your hands down their pants? Is that what you did in the war if you thought some kid might be rigged to blow up? There are only two possibilities here: either the TSA is criminally negligent and stupid, or they don't really believe any of these people are carrying bombs. Critic of the TSA that I am, I still don't believe they're criminally negligent and stupid, and that tells me they don't really believe any of these people they're searching are carrying bombs, and hence, we have security theater.

Timothy McVeigh was an american

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote --I highlighted it in red for you. Timothy McVeigh was an ADULT military veteran. He wasn't an old lady in a wheelchair. He killed other people's children. He didn't put a bomb on his pre-teen daughter and get on an airplane with her and his wife. The inability to distinguish the differences is part of what is wrong with the TSA.

schufflerbot wrote:we DID have metal detectors and screeners at my high school. they DID catch countless idiots trying to sneak all kinds of weapons in; knives, firearms, chains, etc. its amazing that people who walk through those things daily still attempt stuff like that.

Wow, no metal detectors at my school, and we brought guns to school openly. Many a pickup truck had a shotgun or rifle on a rack in the rear window. More than once we looked over a friend's new gun in the parking lot. I think most of the guys probably had a knife on them --yet we never had a stabbing or a shooting, or even a fight on campus, so I have to wonder what those metal detectors have accomplished.

Now I just don't understand the part I highlighted in red. You seem to be saying the metal detectors were not a deterrent. How could this happen daily, can you explain? First day, everyone caught with a weapon is expelled from school, and those with the illegal weapons, like guns, are arrested....might be a few hold outs on the second day, but it seems like by the time the end of the week rolled around all the idiots would be gone so there wouldn't be anything to find.

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

.

Yes, and that is exactly my point --the TSA isn't taking the measures that would be taken if it was serious security instead of security theater.

i have no doubt that theatrics are part of an umbrella tactic to dissuade would be terrorists. the illusion of safety is something the airlines blind it's passengers with, why wouldn't the TSA and airlines put up the illusion of security as well? the idea being, if you let one false alarm walk by without investigating... as silly as a search might be... those evil ninja terrorists hiding in the plants near terminal A are going to exploit the opportunity.

The bottom line is this: if there is a real possibility that a machine alarm for explosives is indication of someone wearing a bomb, then it is criminally negligent to have a TSA agent walk up to them and stick their hands down their pants --it's suicide for the TSA agent, and it's murder for the general public. Maybe the TSA bosses really are that stupid, but I'm willing to give them more credit than that.

n5wd wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:That said, imagine how you would feel if your wife and child were on a plane and because the TSA did not investigate a positive alarm, some skell hijacked the flight, or, blew it up.

Where's the logic in that statement? You think the TSA really believed she had explosives?

I don't know what the TSA people were thinking because I wasn't there, and I ain't one of 'em.

However, I have seen pre-teens used to deliver explosives before (Vietnam 70-71) - if it happened there, it COULD happen here.

I think you're forgetting a key difference: you were in a FORIEGN country, fighting a war against a FOREIGN population, on one side of a CIVIL WAR. To them you were a FOREIGN enemy. You're also ignoring huge cultural differences, but let's go ahead and ignore them: this is America --American parents aren't strapping bombs on American pre-teens, and just what enemy do you think American parents would be fighting by strapping bombs on their children to blow up airplanes? Seriously, if this is really a problem --if Americans are strapping bombs on their children in order to blow them up with a bunch of other people on a plane-- then the WOT is over, and we lost. But they aren't.

Furthermore, I didn't ask you what the TSA was thinking in that particular instance because it's irrelevant and I don't care. To use your comparison, if you really believe it is like back in Nam' and bombs on grandmas and pre-teens are a serious threat, would you approach someone a machine told you might be carrying a bomb and stick your hands down their pants? Is that what you did in the war if you thought some kid might be rigged to blow up? There are only two possibilities here: either the TSA is criminally negligent and stupid, or they don't really believe any of these people are carrying bombs. Critic of the TSA that I am, I still don't believe they're criminally negligent and stupid, and that tells me they don't really believe any of these people they're searching are carrying bombs, and hence, we have security theater.

schufflerbot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

.

Yes, and that is exactly my point --the TSA isn't taking the measures that would be taken if it was serious security instead of security theater.

schufflerbot wrote:...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?