TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

suthdj wrote:When I went in the Army there was always guys talking about Vietnam where little girls would run up to the soldiers with a basket of fruit only to have it blow up and kill them, maybe it was just urban legend I was not there I don't know.

It is not an urban legend.

I know of some army outposts that had to cut down small Arabic children that wouldn't turn around and stop walking towards the facility. Numerous stories of AQ using these little ones as suibombs.

So, these examples justify the government in touching the "sensitive" areas of a 6 year old (the daughter of a doctor from Kentucky), traveling with her family?

Those in power drawing such a ridiculous correlation in a threat assessment is precisely why the Constitution is supposed to protect us (the people) from a police state.

handog wrote:This is tyranny.

Not to those conditioned to believe it makes them safer (or those that work or hope to work for the "state").

Those that believe pat downs of 6 year old girls (after already being subjected to a nude-o-scan) are necessary security procedures have been conditioned to believe so, or they have other interests in play (that differ from the typical traveler).

There is a far greater likelihood that young girls subjected to unwanted touching will end up being drug addicted porn actresses, rather than there being a realistic threat of destructive substances being smuggled on their bodies.

As others have stated, this is mostly security theater that is reactive, at best. Failed shoe bomber attempt...take your shoes off. Threat of liquids being used in plot...limit carry on liquids. Failed underwear bomber...nude-o-scans and enhanced pat downs. Are you all going to subject yourself and family members to searches after someone tries to smuggle a destructive substance in a body cavity?