|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 23140110)
Self-fulfilling prophesies by self-believers. ;)
Terrorists are evolving? Only state actor terrorists have evolved when it comes to using new compounds for explosives. The non-state actor terrorists aren't evolving, and only play copy-cat of sort. The dog and pony show of questioning passengers or of banning full water bottles greater than 100ml is a sign of security degradation and of the inherent technological backwardness of the TSA and its favorites; it has nothing to do with scientific or technological evolutionary advancements of terrorists. |
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23139710)
What is the big debacle in this thread? TSA and Homeland Security, based on credible threats from intelligence agencies, are deciding to increase security screenings abroad for flights into the USA. Makes perfect sense to me.
This announcement seems to have engendered all sorts of criticism from people herein. I don't really understand the reason for it.
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23139710)
If you don't like increased security, feel free to not fly from abroad to the USA.
If you don't like the TSA, feel free not to fly at all within/to the USA.
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23139710)
As a very frequent flyers both domestically and internationally, I think the TSA does a decent job overall--but won't stop everything. Same with Homeland Security. People, I remind everyone, are human. The TSA is a huge agency employing hundreds of thousands of people.
Originally Posted by bhrubin
(Post 23139710)
Those of us who fly internationally know the security abroad can be just as onerous in some places. I've had nightmare security screenings in Tel Aviv, Paris, London, and Moscow of all places...just like I've seen messes at Chicago, LAX, and SFO. It's the cost of doing business or enjoying global travel in today's world.
|
So the liquid restrictions were actually implemented to make passengers miserable and not as a means of combatting terrorists ability to create an explosive device to avoid metal detection?
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 23139753)
There should be doubt, because there isn't a single shred of credible evidence to suggest that TSA has stopped a single terrorist attack.
Al Gore is young? Except that it's easy to claim that there are so-called "credible threats" without having to substantiate them. ...we have a winner!
Originally Posted by flyerORD
(Post 23140004)
In 1956 terrorists weren't using 2000s methods (hydrogen peroxide) to make bombs. In 2025 they will have evolved further. Old people who fail to acknowledge security evolving as well are standing in the way. It's one thing to be set in your ways, it's another to do so when it risks actual lives of other people. I'm sure old guys at the time balked at the idea of airplanes and other technologies. They were standing in the way. Security isn't perfect, and never will be, but the methods of pre 9/11 security aren't sufficient to prevent evolving tech used by evolving terrorists.
|
Originally Posted by jpetekYXMD80
(Post 23140126)
So the liquid restrictions were actually implemented to make passengers miserable and not as a means of combatting terrorists ability to create an explosive device to avoid metal detection?
TSA's liquid restrictions don't combat "terrorists['] ability to create an explosive device to avoid metal detection". |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 23140121)
The TSA is the worst thing that ever happened to commercial aviation and should be shut down. Many of those "hundreds of thousands" on the public dole should be charged with crimes and sent to prison.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 23140139)
The TSA and its supporters' liquid restriction doesn't detect explosives.
Of course it doesn't detect explosives. It limits the quantity of potential explosives. Although I will admit the concessions lobby can't be displeased with our current reality. ;) I am still curious why you felt a need to lob a libelous accusation at me. |
Originally Posted by 84fiero
(Post 23140130)
http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/o...-ding-ding.jpg
...we have a winner! Are you a TSA employee, by chance? |
Originally Posted by jpetekYXMD80
(Post 23139798)
You can look for it all you want, but I have no hesitation in believing there would have been several successful attempts had their existing methods not been snuffed out.
But please, feel free to go back to the 9/11 Commission Report, and point out for all of us how lax gate security was identified as a cause of those attacks.
Originally Posted by flyerORD
(Post 23140118)
Maybe so, but you can't prove that.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 23140139)
TSA's liquid restrictions don't combat "terrorists['] ability to create an explosive device to avoid metal detection".
|
Originally Posted by flyerORD
(Post 23140118)
Maybe so, but you can't prove that. Until then, I'll put my faith in the people actually running the show, not an Internet armchair CEO who dances around people's questions with non-answers.
Anyone willing to run the TSA show in its current form should be answering questions, but instead the TSA responds to questions with non-answers and TSA management frequently proves little to nothing. Does the TSA's pet favorites in TLV want to be run a la the TSA? No, but they'll take TSA for a ride still. ;) |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 23140159)
You can believe whatever you want, but it isn't backed by any credible evidence.
But please, feel free to go back to the 9/11 Commission Report, and point out for all of us how lax gate security was identified as a cause of those attacks. And you can't prove that TSA has prevented a single terrorist attack. |
Coincidence is not causation. ;)
Originally Posted by flyerORD
(Post 23140164)
It did until the terrorists evolved, which is where we find ourselves with the latest advisory. Next?
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 23140172)
Prove what?
Anyone willing to run the TSA show in its current form should be answering questions, but instead the TSA responses to questions with non-answers and TSA management frequently proves little to nothing. Does the TSA's pet favorites in TLV want to be run a la the TSA? No, but they'll take TSA for a ride still. ;) |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 23140183)
Coincidence is not causation. ;)
It never did. The ability to create explosive devices that avoid metal detection is now as it has been for decades. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:53 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.