Just found a knife on my plane

Old Mar 21, 07, 4:14 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post

A knife is not a credible threat. Knives should be ignored and even permitted as they were 6 years ago before the world lost its collective mind.
Actually, they weren't. Knives with blades under 4" were allowed, but an 8" chef's knife would not have been allowed:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in528967.shtml
cestmoi123 is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 4:22 pm
  #62  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,790
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
And I saw an AK-47 run through an X-Ray machine in PNG. Big deal and has no relevance to the discussion of security measures in the US and Europe.

As far as requiring 100 percent effectivness...it is a common misunderstanding that a security measure needs to be 100 percent successful to be effective. This is not the case.

.........

By the way, what do you and Spliff think you accomplish with your little wink emotes?
In this situation, it is to remind: 1) that it is not I who am peddling a misunderstanding; and 2) that the point was missed, but not by me; and 3) you barked up the wrong tree.
GUWonder is online now  
Old Mar 21, 07, 4:49 pm
  #63  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,790
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
And you fail to address the substance of what I wrote.
The substance of what you wrote was peddling a misunderstanding, missing the point and barking up the wrong tree, which is why I gave the . Also, I addressed your question. If your question is without substance, that's not my issue.

DHS/TSA is not very effective, actually not effective at all -- just lucky is what they are, given the incompetents who "lead" there.

Last edited by essxjay; Mar 21, 07 at 4:57 pm Reason: Derogatory attack in removed from previously deleted material
GUWonder is online now  
Old Mar 21, 07, 8:18 pm
  #64  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 538
Well, since my previous post has been disappeared, I'll to to follow up.

You, GU, stated that TSA security is not 100 percent. I pointed out that it doesn't need to be 100 percent ot pose an effective deterrent.

And no, you have NOT responded to the substance of that post.

And mod, if you are going to delete my stuff for a play on a username, I'd sure like it if you disappeared Spiff and GU's stuff where they call those who don't agree with them bigots.
blueeyes_austin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 8:42 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
Well, since my previous post has been disappeared, I'll to to follow up.

You, GU, stated that TSA security is not 100 percent. I pointed out that it doesn't need to be 100 percent ot pose an effective deterrent.

And no, you have NOT responded to the substance of that post.

And mod, if you are going to delete my stuff for a play on a username, I'd sure like it if you disappeared Spiff and GU's stuff where they call those who don't agree with them bigots.
Its the normal double-standard......
law dawg is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 8:51 pm
  #66  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 538
Yeah, I'm noticing that there is a bit of that going on...I came in here innocently enough from a link on the front page. See Spiff and GU ranting on about "Islamophobes" and "bigots" while employing incredibly deceptive techniques of argumentation. I wonder, why doesn't anyone call them on this?

Well, now I know why.
blueeyes_austin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 9:16 pm
  #67  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
IHG Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta - Silver; UA - Silver; HHonors - Diamond; IHG - Spire Ambassador; Marriott Bonvoy - Titanium
Posts: 13,535
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
Well, since my previous post has been disappeared, I'll to to follow up.

You, GU, stated that TSA security is not 100 percent. I pointed out that it doesn't need to be 100 percent ot pose an effective deterrent.
I am now truly curious as to how TSA security is not supposed to pose an effective deterrent?
Points Scrounger is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 10:42 pm
  #68  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Points Scrounger View Post
I am now truly curious as to how TSA security is not supposed to pose an effective deterrent?
I think it IS pretty effective and that the fact that TSA is screening at a higher level is a sigificant deterrent. Whether it is effective or not (that is, if it prevents attacks that would otherwise occur) really depends on a terrorist's assessment of the danger of being caught.

I suspect that, at least as far as activities in the US, AQ and other terrorist cells are fairly risk averse (to keep some capacity) and that as a result the percieved higher chance of failing to execute a mission has indeed prevented terrorist attacks. Certainly the main attacks of Islamic extremists since 9/11 (Bali, London, Madrid) have been against MUCH softer targets (a bar and public trains).
blueeyes_austin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 10:55 pm
  #69  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by law dawg View Post
Its the normal double-standard......
Come now, law dawg, you impress me as someone who, like bart, has an appreciation for critical thinking and logical evaluation. cestmoi123 seems to think that a knife with a less than 4" blade is somehow not a knife. blueeyes_austin seems to think the TSA is an effective screening force, despite published reviews. The FAM force has an abysmal cost/benefit ratio. How can you continue to support the status quo?
birdstrike is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 10:56 pm
  #70  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DL Silver, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, BW Diamond
Posts: 26,802
USA Today article?

I didn't see this referenced in the thread yet, but this story seems to be on the USA Today website now. Here's a link:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...t_N.htm?csp=34
Jaimito Cartero is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 11:04 pm
  #71  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
Come now, law dawg, you impress me as someone who, like bart, has an appreciation for critical thinking and logical evaluation. cestmoi123 seems to think that a knife with a less than 4" blade is somehow not a knife. blueeyes_austin seems to think the TSA is an effective screening force, despite published reviews. The FAM force has an abysmal cost/benefit ratio. How can you continue to support the status quo?
I make no assertions about the relative benefit-to-cost ratio of TSA. I DO assert that the clear and additional screening mechanisms and carry-on restrictions put in place post-9/11 will have necessarily made the terrorists calculation of the likelihood of a successful assault go down. I'm sure there is plenty of room to make the post-9/11 security system more effective and to do so at lower cost--the liquid ban, for example, seems to me to be a highly dubious endeavor. But I must point out, however, that ban was developed on the right side of the pond, not concieved in the minds of TSA bureaucrats.
blueeyes_austin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 11:23 pm
  #72  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
But I must point out, however, that ban was developed on the right side of the pond, not concieved in the minds of TSA bureaucrats.
It was handed down to TSA bureaucrats by DHS bureaucrats who forced the hand of our compatriots on the right side of the pond. You are barking well up the wrong side of the tree here.

"The clear and additional screening mechanisms and carry-on restrictions put in place post-9/11" has been a clear, effective, and ongoing attack on our economy and political system that you appear to support. Terrorists are not as fixated upon a specific means of achieving their goals as you and law dawg seem to think, they look for targets of unprotected opportunity.
birdstrike is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 11:34 pm
  #73  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
It was handed down to TSA bureaucrats by DHS bureaucrats who forced the hand of our compatriots on the right side of the pond. You are barking well up the wrong side of the tree here.
That is incorrect. It was prompted by the British ban on liquids.

As far as the additional security being an attack on our economy, unlikely. If this were so, we would expect to see a diminished demand for air travel and the knock-on negative effects throughout the economy.

Additional security an attack on our political system...well, democracy is not a suicide pact. Closer monitoring of people who choose to go on planes...and a closer inspection of the materials they are bringing on board...seems to me to be a rational response to the attack the US suffered.
blueeyes_austin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 07, 11:38 pm
  #74  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,319
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
Additional security an attack on our political system...well, democracy is not a suicide pact. Closer monitoring of people who choose to go on planes...and a closer inspection of the materials they are bringing on board...seems to me to be a rational response to the attack the US suffered.
I disagree. People who pass the WTMD and have their items x-rayed should never be harassed any further. A chemical test would be idea to add to that, but shoe harassment is pointless.

No one should ever have to show ID. The WTMD/x-ray/ETP should be all any passenger is subjected to.
Spiff is online now  
Old Mar 21, 07, 11:44 pm
  #75  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
That is incorrect. It was prompted by the British ban on liquids.
Which was forced by our demands to show their hand too early in the investigation.

Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
As far as the additional security being an attack on our economy, unlikely. If this were so, we would expect to see a diminished demand for air travel and the knock-on negative effects throughout the economy.
Well, I won't travel to Europe until this insanity is under control. Not their fault, BTW.

Originally Posted by blueeyes_austin View Post
Additional security an attack on our political system...well, democracy is not a suicide pact. Closer monitoring of people who choose to go on planes...and a closer inspection of the materials they are bringing on board...seems to me to be a rational response to the attack the US suffered.
Convince me that we can do this without compromising the Constitution and I'll agree with you.
birdstrike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: