I experience this every month in a non-English speaking country and it really speeds things up and, doesn't bother me. Take my laptop out? No, don't bother. When they do look, not always, and they do see something they don't recognize they ask, hey around this spot, what's in there? A camera (I guess) , I say. OK, great they say.

Metal detector - remove one metal item , usually the cell phone since it is close by (though it probably has less metal in it than other things) . Skip the watch, belt etc., Set off metal detector. Half-hearted wave of the wand. OK, go through. Because they can see the watch and belt and they can draw a sensible conclusion.

At my connection point they have a lot of dogs looking for weed and cocaine, a bigger priority. They have one dog trained to sniff money but mistakenly included coins in his training. When I was caught by Snoopy he found 36 Trinidadian cents (worth about zero). I asked the policeman since the limit for currency is US$10,000 and therefore 40,001 quarters would be the minimum for a law breaker do they find many guys with their pants looking like they have elephantiasis, and walking slow since they have 995 pounds of coins on them? They don't (find any) and he regretted the coin part of the dog's training.

I think the strength of security is that the miscreants just don't know how thorough it will be nor when, so it really doesn't have to be that thorough that often. That's why sampling works in other areas. I sure would not then say you guys are really bad at this security thing you know. They won't change anyway and I look like a troublemaker.

Go ahead and report it if you think the people/person/group that receives the complaint will care and then make a change. Security anywhere is not about catching anyone doing something, but to intimidate anyone from wanting to do something. The fact that the bag goes through screening means someone will take the chance of getting caught seriously. But if someone wants to do something, they will figure out a way, and it wont be as simple as trying to use a line where no one really looks. They will put what they need where no one can, or dares, look.

Hitherto, the only one here having asserted an issue about "black helicopters" is to be found in your posts. Any objective viewpoint would be capable of recognizing that my posts on this topic are informed based upon operational facts.

Your previous experience and attempted characterization of me is irrelevant -- all it does is do is: "completely avoids the issue at hand".

TSA-wanted-and-approved "security" theater covers DXB and IST too.

I can't speak for the person you ask. But I did indeed leave the US and saw what goes on in other countries.

I can confidently assess the TSA a higher level of professionalism than the security forces in Sierra Leone. (not going into the details here but these poor guys didn't even have a WTMD etc.)

I can confidently assess that the security screeners in Japan, Thailand, Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark) and Germany are both MUCH friendlier to their customers and seemed to be very accurate and detailed in their procedures.

I experienced very detailed security (for instance in the Middle East) and extremely friendly ones (e.g. in Ghana). I have yet to find a country where security is at the level of my US experiences in terms of unfriendlyness and inefficiency.

I would like to get the TSA to work and I rely on a working TSA as a frequent flyer. But the TSA is ineffective, wasteful and unfriendly. If the TSA was efficient and friendly I would certainly not complain.

These days, if you want to be yelled at, you just go to an airport in the US.

That's a lot of false statements in such a short post. If you had taken the time to read my posts, you would have seen a clear description of how security in these two specific airports is structured, with a separate area for US-bound flights, and standard security elsewhere. I know this, because I've been there, and I'm describing what I've seen. Have you?

I asked some specific questions - most importantly this: (I'll phrase it nice and simply) - what proof ("facts") do you have that "TSA-wanted-and-approved 'security' theater" exists at the non-US-specific security checkpoints at these two airports?

You are dramatically over-asserting the authority that the US wields over sovereign states, and more importantly the level of interest that such states have in co-operating with them. To be clear - the approach adopted by the vast majority of countries, including these two, is basically that they don't give a cr*p about what the US does or thinks with regards to security, but will perform the bare minimum needed for US-bound flights to depart from their airports. Everyone else, thankfully, gets spared.

Now - and this is an important point - plenty of countries do have their own version of security theatre, and there have been some crazy things dreamt up (thankfully most pale in comparison with the TSA), but giving the US credit for this is just ridiculous.

I agree 100% with this, and my experiences are very similar to yours, in a similar set of countries also.

No, but there you go providing a false statement above. ;)

I've been to IST and DXB repeatedly over the course of the past 12 months and much more before too, and I am very well aware of what goes on that is generally observable by passengers flying to the US directly on US carriers or otherwise and of what goes on at government-to-government levels.

Lots of proof, but I'm not in the business of spoon-feeding on demand. ;)

I am not dramatically over-asserting anything, but I am certainly not dismissive of the fact that DHS does what it can to get its way in as much of the world as it can -- IST and DXB included.

Yes, but it's not ridiculous to give the US some credit for this ridiculous "security" theater on display at DXB and IST too.

.... it's not too hard to observe "security" at LHR shouting at passengers daily too.