General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (ChisolmTrailDem) on Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:41 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)but only a small bomb to kill 150 people in a plane at 30,000 ft.
Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #1)
ChisolmTrailDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)It would be much, much less deadly for a small bomb to go off in an airport compared to an airplane.
How many people were killed in Boston?
Three.
Sid
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)a fairly confined area with a lot of people and I'm sure a laptop filled with C4 or whatever could take out quite a few of those people.
Do you want me to edit my post to make you happy? Is that what you want? Do you want a confession from me that maybe 150 people won't be killed so my point doesn't stand?
Is that what you want, sweetie?
...but, no. Not for you. Not ever.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)That is, if you actually have one.
Sid
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Or are you just whinging about having to turn your laptop on when you travel?
Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #13)
ChisolmTrailDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)TSA Agent: "Good afternoon, Sir"
Terrorist: *click*
BOOM!
No laptops needed to be powered up in this scenario. If a terrorist wants to blow up a check-in counter (which is supremely unlikely to the point of probability approaching zero), why do you think they'd first need prompting from a TSA agent?
Again, what point were you trying to make, and failing miserably, in your OP?
Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #17)
Post removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to the issue being debated, i.e. whether it's better to catch a bomb in the security line vs on the airplane?
Seems like a cheap appeal to nativism and xenophobia.
MineralMan
(151,194 posts)It's irrelevant to the point being discussed. Pretty ugly, if you ask me.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #21)
ChisolmTrailDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
JI7
(93,562 posts)
uppityperson
(116,017 posts) ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)
MineralMan
(151,194 posts)Right now, the requirement to turn on electronics is mainly being done at airports outside the US for flights coming to the US. Sid's more likely to have to do that than you are.
Seeya!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Canadian citizens flying into the US, or connecting through a US airport, get to just skip those lines?
Also, TSA security requirements tend to get exported to countries that fly into the United States, which is just about all of them.
You were trying to get in a cheap shot based on citizenship, just own it.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)"Papier, bitte?"
geez.
Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Original post)
Fred Sanders This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)meant to be sarcastic but I understand that even if I put the sarcasm tag there, it could still be taken as racist and stereotyping and that was not my intent. Thank you for bringing it to my attention and calling me on it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)
FSogol
(47,611 posts) Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Massed people in any place are vulnerable. True it is more dramatic when a plane falls from the sky, but you could kill more in a crowded mall or county fair and have a better chance of success.
The TSA really isn't about security. The TSA provides an illusion of security. The only intent is to make people feel safer, so they will fly, so the the airlines keep making money.
In the end the TSA is really just corporate welfare for airlines, because it makes people think they are safer so they fly and it also moves the responsibility for security and liability if security fails away from the corporations making money and to the taxpayers.
bpj62
(1,067 posts)If a terrorist really wants to do damage at an airport they simply have to wait for the holiday season and the ticket counter area is packed. there is not any security that will prevent them from either shooting or becoming a suicide bomber at the front of the airport. They simply have to get out of the car and walk right in. Now try and park for a minute while waiting for your friend or family member to come out of the baggage area and the cops will be all over you. They have moved on from airplanes and are looking at bigger things. TSA is just like the military, always fighting the last battle.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)nitroglycerin
quick show us your dentures
lame54
(39,710 posts)great retirement plan
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd guess turning one off could potentially have the precise same effect, depending on the particular switch method involved.
Boom. 15 dead...
MineralMan
(151,194 posts)Anyone could already act out the scenario you named. Having to turn on a device doesn't make it any more or less likely to happen.
However, having to turn on the device might actually prevent an in-flight detonation that might kill as many as 350 people. That is apparently the goal, I think.
Terrorism inside an airport is always a threat, and there aren't many ways to prevent it, really. That it hasn't happened on a large scale is a very good thing, I'm sure you'll agree, but it has nothing to do with whether people have to turn on their electronic equipment at all.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's a lot better for the airline if people die on the ground than in the air.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)what next will they be doing?
You have to check in 6 hours before a flight! 