"Security Feints": sad article
 

Read it and weep! The hardcopy had a list of all "incidents", which clearly demonstrated that the premise of this article is idiotic. This "security consultant" should be tarred and feathered.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2238-5164r.htm

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Pathetic lies. :td:

The only 'probing' going on is by those two little sickos, Comrades Chertoff and Hawley, as to how much abuse and harassment the traveling public will tolerate.

They too should be tarred and feathered.

Man, I just do not get why people are so hostile about the TSA and so personally negative towards Chertoff and Hawley?

I'm no pollyanna (and have even read the book!) and do not hesitate to call a dope a dope, but what's up with the 'tude?

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

When someone violates my civil liberties, lies to me about the reasons for supposedly doing so and ignores technology that is available and actually does provide security, I get a little testy. ;)

Normally, bullies like these two get their come-uppance before too long, however there's no legal end in sight to their reign of terror. :(

I think the Northeast Intelligence Network is trying to drum up some business. Notice how DHS was the only government agency quoted and even then they said very little.

Seems like these companies and people have something to gain if they can keep the fear going. :td:

As least the last few quotes called for some sanity.

Very bad article overall though. :td:

From another thread, discussing the TS/S Forum:

Sadly the Wash Times is the mouthpiece of the current regime to a great extent. This article shows this warped mentality and also clearly shows how these so-called "security consultants" are trying to profit from this. As if some kid dropping his Ipod in the toilet (was this a hoax?) is the terrorists "testing us". If this indeed is a problem then we should not overreact in a mindless manner. And then to throw in some cockeyed tale about "Khaled in Atlanta". Pathetic.......

Not sure how this is cause for "whipping the TSA" unless criticizing the government's handling of this is an extension of "whipping the TSA".

The people interviewed in that article are completely delusional. I've never read such rubbish in my life. Those idiots are creating more "terror" than the terrorists could ever do by themselves!

I completely agree that it's a pretty transparent attempt by the so-called security experts to drum up business and profit for themselves. There's a lot of money to be made from public hysteria, unfortunately.

Oh and BTW if people are upset that the TS&S forum has an anti-TSA bias, why don't you go to any of the other Internet travel forums? I've found that the more mainstream Internet forums that attract the less frequent travelers are much less negative towards the TSA (USA Today Airline blog, NY Times comment section on articles about airline security, the travel guidebook sites, etc.).

But if you want to know how a lot of real frequent flyers feel about the TSA, you've come to the right place. The reason we're so anti-TSA is because we have to put up with this intolerable, ineffective, abusive crap the most.

The "people" in this instance seem to be Randy Peterson - owner and operator of this website, so take it for what it's worth, but he has the power to shut down this forum if he chooses. Also, I and many others agree with him. I don't like what's going on any more than most here, but to scream bloody murder at any possible moment is getting old and as Randy so clearly stated, the message looses it's power as most people are just getting tired at name calling and no real evidence presented by the poster(s). I posted some time back telling the no.1 TSA basher that it's not quantity of accusations, it's the quality, but apparently that did not make any difference......

Post some solid evidence and I will join the fight, but just simply start with name calling everytime an article appears somewhere, whether for or against the TSA basher's beliefs, and I loose interest and refuse to even listen to the basher's nonsense. So you can actually say that the basher is loosing support with the simplistic approach.

Just my opinion and you or others don't have to agree.

I dunno S-guy. Why about this part:

Kicker quotes like these are ^ in my book.

BTW, this Laura Mansfield person is a real piece of work. From the cited link:

She is no expert except in her own mind. Absolutely no credentials other than the fact she blogs and can translate Arabic. Writer and commentator, indeed. Reprobate scaremonger more like it.

If you've got the stomach for it, check out her six-parter: Jihad In Small Town America. It reads like a True Confessions serial. Completely devoid of verifiability! Horrid syntax and grammar to boot.

Me too. So what's the deal with this binary explosives threat? Is there any way a terrorist could take two inert liquids aboard and silently mix them to make something explosive?

The TSA is not the root of all incompetence but when the TSA messes up, it's messed up. An underinvestment -- in more than just money -- in technology by the TSA is evidence of some incompetence, but not the root of all incompetence.

She's not a counterterrorism expert -- by the measure of more than just her mistaken calls -- and she's not an Arabic expert -- by the measure of both her simple mistakes in translations and her injection of a political agenda into what should be simple translations. Then again, she's got her bank account and her affiliations which need satisfying.

I view her as an Annie Jacobsen of sorts.

Then again, there is Douglas Hagmann of "NIN" and there's his usual "terrorists are everywhere" "probing" hysteria.

... so much money to be made, so little time. :D

Actually some good stuff at the tail end of the article
 

The "ignore" feature works well for this.

I bet that back in the day she thought there was a Commie under every rock. :td:

:td: to the Washington Times for this piece of drivel.

The way they slant the article--from the headline "Airline-security incidents seen as terrorist feints" completely misrepresenting the lead-in paragraph (which says the incidents have "more to do with flukes, red herrings or terrorist probes than with actual, imminent threats, intelligence observers and security officials say," NOT that all the incidents are seen as feints as the headline suggests) to the selections of quotes and people interviewed--is hardly journalism.

I believe I said there were a few good quotes at the end of the article. Those were the ones I referred to.

Unfortunately, I wonder how many people actually read the whole article. I'm willing to be a lot of people didn't make it that far.

We have trashed this Hagmann and his 'organization' before in a couple of threads (which I can't be bothered to look up).

Suffice it to say that the genuine experts in security keep a very low profile. They do not seek publicity and go to great lengths to keep their identities out of the media. These clowns are self-promoting charlattans; the only thing being "probed" is the gullibilty of the press and, by extension, the general public.

The bomb hoaxes are simple cause-and-effect. The media gleefully reports one, some neanderthal copycat emerges, the media reports that and so on...
Did the threats suddenly stop, or did the media finally realise they were being had and belatedly apply some editorial nous ?

I think it's pretty obvious that security scares have cost the airline industry a lot of money.

British Airways alone has calculated the cost of last months parlava was about $80 million (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5316920.stm).

It seems that the airlines, already targets of terrorism are also targets of politicians who use terrorism fears for their own ends.

Considering that some of the most frequent posters on this forum are TSA Officers and Supervisors, and Federal Air Marshals, I'm not sure what more we could do to make it more balanced. Some of them actually agree with some of the points made by "anti-TSA" people on this board. So, I guess it could be that the only way to keep the truth about the TSA from getting out would be to shut down the forum completely.

Personally, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and information on this forum, including posts from people with whom I disagree.

justageek, nobody is arguing that anti-TSA positions should not be presented here. I am certain that was never Randy's contention either.

What Randy said -- and I agree with him on this -- is that the repeated denunciations by the same posters, often with no new information being presented, is not only not effective but also counter-productive. The people you want to reach simply turn off.

What Randy did not say -- but I am -- is that overstating a position also undermines your case.

If someone wants to say that the TSA is not effective, and provide substantiation, that is one thing. (Indeed, I have often taken that position myself.)

If he wants to call them "Communists" and "perverts", then he has gone overboard and, IMHO, not worth serious attention.

Ah! So you did ...

Too true. :(

It's amazing the you only quoted a very little part of my post.

For some reason you chose not to quote the following:

1. I also don't like what's going on...

2. I'm more than willing to debate, whether I agree or disagree with somebody as long as they present a valid point. Name calling is not a valid debate, it gets old very quickly and turns people off.

That's all some of us are saying. Just like you I don't want any forum shut down, but I could see why Randy is posting a warning. I have learned so much from all the different forums over the last few years, including this one, but recently I hardly visit this one anymore because it basically became TSA bashing only, with viscious name calling and no real new debatable information.....YMMV

I have learned a lot from this forum and continue to do so .... especially from those posts criticizing the TSA and from those working for it and those tolerating it. But that's not a discussion for this thread as much as the article which is peddling hysteria until it gets to the end of the article and some common sense is said in passing.

I almost didn't make it thru that drivel to see those quotes. I might lean a little right, but geez, that was way over the top. :td:

I want to go on record as saying the TSA seems to be improving. ORD was good yesterday as it is most always.

LAX a poster child if ever there was one was fine also yesterday. Well OK. Five of them spent 6 minutes looking at the xray screen instead of just grabbing the darn bag and checking it. They really held up the line.

But I haven't seen anybody screaming at passengers in months.

Deleted

I don't see any necessary connection between:

A. "underestimating" the resourcefulness of "international" terrorists (or downplaying "their" intentions)

and

B. overreacting to every incident as a possible terrorist probe.

That is, just because there is A does not mean there is always B (or vice versa).

I don't see any necessary connection between:

A. "underestimating" the resourcefulness of "international" terrorists (or downplaying "their" intentions)

and

B. overreacting to every incident as a possible terrorist probe.

That is, just because there is A does not mean there is always B (or vice versa).

We have a lot of B going on nowadays.

Deleted

True, but bringing the discussion back to the article, the author didn't provide any evidence that any of the reported incidents were "dry runs" by terrorist, yet implied that they all were!

I think what's goig on here, as you alluded to as a possibility, is that in a heightened state of vigilence, everything looks suspicious. It doesn't mean that those activities are happening with any higher frequency than before, just that you are noticing them more.

Deleted

I'm not the topic. Above mischaracterizations, stated and implied, set aside. ;)

No; by your own admission above, we don't get it all in this forum.

Deleted

Before the news-hungry media reacts, the actors being covered have had to do something. So the "non-incidents" just happen to be mostly overreactions. Then again when paranoia is at the core of the message being spread from the political and media bully-pulpits, this is no surprise.

The point also being that I'm not the topic. ;)

Well, I'll state the point again, but only a bit more bluntly. ;)

"No; by your own admission above, we don't get it all in this forum." Why is that? Because as your own example shows with

A. "airport security is not as effective as it could be is one thing"

and

B. "it is a complete waste of time and not provide any specifics is to poo-poo the idea just because it causes inconveniences or violates a naive interpretation of civil liberties"

there's little qualitative difference between the two except that the TSA-is-mostly-good crowd finds A to be a more substantive point while a good size of the TSA-is-mostly-a-waste crowd finds B to be a more substantive point. Of course disparaging the position of "the enemy" by seeing one as more substantive than the other thing is telling enough. :o

So we don't get it all, at least not all of the time. ;)

It just happened also that she was married to a Muslim whom she qualifies as a radical extremist and from whom she has managed to "escape" with her children. :confused:
As far as her political agendas - well it is not difficult to see where she is coming from - an axe to grind for her youthful mistakes :rolleyes:

That reminds me of Ann Coulter who considers herself an expert on Islam too. Carnal relations ending on a sour note (for one party); fortunately no kids involved that time.

This would be like OBL's alienated half-brother claiming to be a counterterrorism expert by measure of having been around his half-brother OBL before getting in a fight with him. :D