"If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" - Page 6

They see how we are basically strip-searching each other and giving up our personal rights because of their threats. They planted the seeds, but the fear we have cultivated on our own, we've totally reacted exactly how they wanted us to. I'm sure the terrorists are congratulating themselves on a job well done!

I don't see why they would be laughing at us... Please let us know when have they successfully attacked us since 9/11?

Actually, their web sites say they're laughing at us, because with the investment of just a few thousand dollars, they're causing us to spend several billion on security.

Inspire magazine says "Fear is Cheap"

Doesn't show me anything... Just that they are pathetic, with a bigger then themselves hurt egos... because.... they FAILED!
So, IMHO, we still got the last laugh.

If the businesses getting our dollars are American businesses, then the "several billions" stay in America! So there.

Oh, yes, quite true. I just said that they considered those attacks successes.

The same is true, by the way, of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the money spent on them went into American pockets, so they're not the drag on the economy they might appear to be. Which is not to say plenty of billions of dollars in cash didn't just disappear.

mmmmm...

I wonder what they would do if'n one told them they had all kinds of steel parts...a la...bionic man...

...or, in my case, getting a Defibrillator in them? They'd have to do a body check then, right?

I wonder how big a problem this would have been soon after WWII or Korea, when a LOT of guys had some metal parts installed.

EXACTLY
this is an email i got about warnings from Israeli agent Juval Aviv. In a lecture in New York City he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -but that our government has not yet shared with us.

Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try
and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go
down quietly again.. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke --
that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing
strategies that are truly effective.

For example:

1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new
explosives are made of plastic.

2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire.
Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of
idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring
liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to
pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will
have us all traveling naked!
Every strategy we have is reactionary.

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.

Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future,
they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where
people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two
suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person
next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the
restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security
even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can
even ENTER the airport.


Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and
will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where
large groups of people congregate. (I.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas
casinos, big cities ( New York , San Francisco , Chicago , etc.) and
that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train
stations, etc., as well as, rural America this time.. The interlands
( Wyoming , Montana , etc.).

The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around
the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8
cities, including rural areas.

Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the
larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they
can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.

Wow. That was uplifting! Hope there are no terrorists on TheCatSite!

Ultimately, a free society is going to have "soft targets" if it is to remain free.

I am ok with that.

Its part of the inherent sacrifices you make, and I am not interested in the direction towards a police state for a tiny margin of extra safety.

As Benjamin Franklin once said:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

There are 307 million American citizens, and likely another 15 million illegal aliens in the United States.

The amount of Americans killed on US soil since 1980 by terrorist attacks is approximately 3,000. Simple math tells us thats around 300 deaths a year due to terrorist attacks on US soil. That is lower than the rate for Americans killed in lightning strikes.

To further put that into perspective, approximately 600,000 a year die of heart disease, of which the leading causes include obesity and inactivity. 43,000 die in motor vehicle accidents.

So, statistically speaking, you should be magnitudes more frightened at a McDonalds drive-through than of being killed in a terrorist attack, but we can tell that is far from the case.

Instead of waging a war against the couch, fast-food, and bringing our driving standards up to European levels providing very clear long-lasting results, we wage war in the middle-east with questionable return on investment not just in financial cost but in the cost of lives. Does it make sense?

He also praised having affairs with older, married women. I don't live my life by aphorisms.

Virtually every moment of our lives demands that we give up some freedom for safety. Why should I drive to right of the center line in a highway? Why shouldn't I carry my gun into a bar? Is there really any good reason I shouldn't fly my Cessna 50 feet above the ground through Dallas?

That is exactly what a law is. It takes away someone's absolute freedom in order to protect the safety of society at large.

Yes, there are limits.

Being searched before boarding a plane isn't beyond those limits, in my book. Being searched while someone obviously Arab is not searched IS.

Wait.... whaaaat?

Are you talking about the infamous "love letter"?

There is no evidence that Jefferson ever had an affair w/ Angelica Church, and it is highly unlikely. She was a popular figure of the social elite inside the royal circle, described as both intelligent and beautiful, was clearly fond of Jefferson as well considering the gifts, and likely filled an emotional hole for the man with the passing of his wife. Hardly grounds for demonization IMO.

Fair enough, and I don't promote anarchy, but the point was just to measure the sacrifice of freedoms with the statistical risk, which IMO are completely divorced at present. Again, since the 80s we are talking about an annual death toll on par with lightning strike victims. Fatalities due to terrorist attacks are amongst the absolute lowest causes of death in the US, and security measures put in place should be measured accordingly, that is all.

I definitely agree regarding the oversensitivity to political correctness as well though, treating a grandmother traveling with two young grandchildren from Kansas with no flags on their record the same as a 19 year old youth in obvious religious muslim garb and Pakistani passport.

IMO, even one death due to terrorism is one too many. Just because there are fewer deaths from terrorism than lightning strikes doesn't make it OK.

Mrblanche makes an excellent point re why there are laws. There are many people out there in our world that need clear cut guidelines because without them those people are unable to make wise decisions. Parents feeding their children junk food and the obesity problem is one good example as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe one doesn't agree with what the government is doing to try to protect their citizens but at least they are trying to do something. Naturally, as in all cases, there are those among us who feel they could do it better, make better decisions if they were in power. I'm pretty certain they would find the same limits and drawbacks as those who are already in power. It's very easy to be an armchair critic.

Did you read your own quote? We're talking about Franklin, not Jefferson. Back up, take a breath or two, and see if you want to edit that message.

And yet, we tell people not to stand under trees in a lightning storm, and amusement parks (even big ones, like Disney World) completely shut down if a thunderstorm moves into the area.

Your argument is similar to that made by Libertarians, that all drugs should be made legal. Yeah, you're going to lose a certain number of people (usually young people) to addiction, overdose, etc., but it's a small price to pay for having that freedom.

And that's fine, until that lost person is your loved one.

And that applies to terrorism, too. I don't know about you, but we had several people we were very worried about for a while after 9/11. Fortunately, they were all safe in the end, but we didn't know.

Now, do I think some anti-terrorist measures have gone too far? Yes, probably. Do I think they have been misapplied? You bet. Do I think we could do a better job, statistically, in preventing attacks? Yes. Do I think CAIR would allow us to do that? Probably not.

Careful. That's almost exactly the statement that got Juan Williams fired at NPR!

Sorry, but reading the above made me giggle. What's "obviously Arab", and would any halfway intelligent terrorist actually wear "Muslim garb"?

I've got one Syrian student who could pass for a Scandinavian with her blue eyes and natural blond hair, and a Tunisian with blue eyes, light brown hair and very pale skin. My eldest niece, who's of Russian-Jewish descent on her father's side, is as dark (hair, eyes, skin) as, or darker than, many Arabs. So's my Sioux brother-in-law.

Changes to security checks may be in the offing:
Support Grows for Tiered Risk System at Airports

Well, while it's always tempting to fight the last war rather than fighting the current one, statistical analysis says that the people the two of us mentioned are 100% more likely to be a terrorist than a grandma with two kids with her. In fact, other than Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, I don't think you'll find any who wouldn't have been in the groups we mentioned.

Does that mean it can't change? No.

Does that mean we should ignore history and logic in favor or political correctness? Only at our own peril!

Oh, uhmmm... yeah, thats what I meant...............

Sorry, had that argument before and went into flashback mode forgetting what I was talking about. I shall commit ritual japanese suicide now to redeem myself.

The vast majority of snakes are not poisonous, but you don't need to check for venomous fangs on a duck with her ducklings in tow. Some common sense profiling for risk assessment is ok, and I don't think anyone looking at the passport of a sioux would wonder if the taliban went on a native-american recruiting spree. There is a trend in the profile of your average terrorist of late, that is all, so give the "extra special care" to those that at least throw up a single red-flag of some sort, not completely at random.


Not to derail the thread, but I do agree w/ that statement on drugs as well, with the exception of highly addictive substances that can cause a temporary lapse in rational decision making to end in disaster. There should be common sense restrictions (no operating machinery, public intoxication, etc), but an adult can make their own decisions. Alcoholism is a real threat, but the prohibition was a total failure in concept, and marijuana for example is not any more addictive than alcohol and controlled legalization would likely prove as big a blow to organized crime as ending the prohibition did for bootlegging.

No need. If that's the worst attack of CRS you have on the internet, you'll be among the best, not the worst.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ay-classy-tsa/

They may need to screen the TSA agents more.