As soon as the American public stops suing the government for terrorist attacks, the government will stop trying to cover it's backside.

And as soon as terrorist attacks stop being perpetrated by people predominantly from the same part of the world, the racial profiling can stop.

Until then, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Do I think that's right or fair? No. But then again, I don't think that crashing planes into buildings or blowing up trains, etc, is right or fair.

Yes, you're right this time.

Am I supposed to be a fan of opinions with which I disagree? Sorry, but I don't think so. I'm entitled to being a fan of whichever opinions I find to have greater merit. And -- just as an FYI -- I am more a fan of facts than even my own opinions -- not to say anything about yours. If I am proven wrong, I welcome it.

If being generally correct and confident about relying on facts is seen as arrogant and self-important, that is not my issue. Also, contrary to your claim, I don't look down on most people; I am just not interested in servile fawning or buying into fictions.

Who is suing the American government successfully?

Terrorist attacks are perpetrated by people predominantly from the American part of the world too; terrorist attacks are perpetrated by people predominantly from the Asian part of the world too; terrorist attacks are perpetrated by people predominantly from the African part of the world too; terrorist attacks are perpetrated by people predominantly from the European part of the world too. Are you saying that we racist profile the human race?

Non-sequitur.

Traveller having not been there with you how could I answer that without it being a total bs guess? From what you told us however I would venture to guess your detention was not on the merit of your behavior and was on the purpose of your trip and that you were traveling from a high risk country into Israel. But even to say that is a guess. Obviously they had a specific concern as as soon as they talked to a citizen there who could verify your purpose for the trip they stopped questioning you and let you go.

No, I would never expect anyone to agree with opinions they feel are wrong. Everyone is entitled to his or her own. But you don't just disagree with people, you criticize them for having "their" opinion. You belittle them. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, but its really just mean. Opinions are just what they are. You don't know everything. People are telling how they see things. It doesn't mean their wrong, it just means they don't agree with how you see things. You criticize anyone that doesn't agree with you, you don't just disagree.

Unlike with people, not all opinions are to be considered equal.

That's right: I don't disagree with people; I just disagree with (and demonstratively criticize) individual's bad opinions, ignorance or selective/distortive use of facts.

If "them" refers to "opinions" -- specifically bad opinions, ignorance or selective/distortive use of facts -- then yes, I belittle such "opinions".



Yes. See above.

Yes.

Yes.

Bad opinions, ignorance or selective/distortive use of facts is right? I don't think so.

.... as is, thankfully, still their right. But that doesn't necessarily change the nature of a statement/assertion.

Incorrect. What I do is criticize flawed opinions based on ignorance or selective/distortive use of facts.

So if you don't expect anyone to agree with "opinions" they feel (or often know) are wrong, then should you not welcome the challenging of "opinions" that I feel or know to be wrong?

To which wrongful perception of mine are you trying to refer?

(In the absence of giving proof to that end, the retort may seem to be just hollow rhetoric.)

Your ethnicity/religion, passport issue date/location, passport stamps (i.e., countries visited), place of birth, home address, work and clothes/jewelry are what ATH LY security relies upon disproportionately. In about that order. And then whether or not they are (wittingly or unwittingly) prejudiced against the aforementioned "less-disputables", they decide whether or not to do further grilling. Then, if the initial answers to the follow-up questions -- whose answers involve "non-physically-substantiated" (or less authoritatively substantiated) items -- involve a fair amount of "I don't know" or "yet" (or something less than definite), then that too will increase the likelihood of such interrogation proceeding. (This is especially true when the interrogator believes that he would have a more definite or even more vague/less certain answer if in your situation.)

Battling for the ability to travel within my own country without having to report my intentions to the government and be subjected to subjective suspicions, is one of the wisest battles I can pick. If you want to let the government do whatever they want with you, then go ahead...I am not.

With regards to "detection value", Traveller gave you an example of "behavioral screening" that was a literal waste of time -- especially given that no threat was posed by Traveller on that occassion. It is evident that the "screeners" routinely make mistakes in suspecting "security risks" where there are none.

Since the detection value is so often questionable -- given misidentification of "suspicious behavior" that poses no demonstrable risk -- perhaps a discussion about deterrence value of such screening would better serve you?

It was an overwhelming number of complaints that last year forced the TSA to change it's practice on the way women were being patted down.

This thread is sounding more and more like my 1962 high school logic class that was taught by an illogical dyslexic small minded teacher that should have just been a football coach.

Lehava,

It does no good to argue your point around here, because there are certain people who will never agree with anything that's TSA mandated. Period. They'd rather act like insensitive little ***** and belittle you by picking apart your grammar. Get some class guys/gals. It�s one thing not to agree with somebody, but to tear them down for bad grammar really shows your true colors.

Ciao folks.

So is that a Yes or a No??

I'm white/catholic, passport about 5 years ago/US, visited England and Turkey, PA, FL, work in IT, nice jeans/just earrings...well I do wear a small ruby cross around my neck for semtimental reasons.... I was going to the Dovster TLV meet and I could not get a BE award flight from MCO-TLV so I got one from MCO-ATH-MCO and bought an El Al ATH-TLV-ATH ticket. I toured ATH for 3 days before flying to TLV and then had to fly back to ATL from TLV the night before my ATH-MCO flight.

They could not understand award tickets and award availability, they couldn't understand why a female was travelling alone and they couldn't understand why I was only going to TLV for 5 days! They also couldn't understand the concept of arranging tours on the internet and meeting people that way. Maybe the internet isn't big in ATH? I couldn't help thinking that they wasted 45 minutes on me when they could have been spending time catching terrorists.