I just think it's funny that after 9/11 people are so worried about airplanes. There are thousands of other places that should require higher security protocols than airports but don't have them. The only reason "the shoe bomber" or the "christmas day bomber" exist are because of post 9/11 paranoia. It's pretty stupid when you think about it. I mean, it's not like if you were a passenger on a plane you'd let some crazy dude take over the cockpit, I would attempt to beat his ass.

I LOVE the wry humor!!!
This thread is AWESOME!!!! :thumbright:

---

I think someone should make a cast metal charm that people could put in their pocket, something designed to show up on the scanner.

It would say, "You're a dickhead!"

And if the TSA person got uppity, you'd say. Oh, that's not meant for you. I'm taking it to the anti-Obama rally in (city of your destination).

---

I bet there will be alot of people applying for the job to be the one to look at all the "nekked" people.
Of course they also have to look at all the grannys and such....and Hazer.....
I think i'm going to pull my application on that thought.

---

The "Shoe Bomber" and "Christmas Day Bomber"s didn't attempt to take over the cockpit. The only reason why the latter bomber's flight didn't blow up is because of a malfunction in his crappy bomb.

How is paranoia causing people to bring bombs onto planes? I realize that there and more vulnerable bombing targets, however when's the last time you've heard of a bomb in the U.S. from terrorist origin anywhere but on a plane?

In 1993 A bomb in a van exploded in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

In 1995 A car bomb destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

In 1996 A pipe bomb exploded during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.


My point is that the paranoia surrounding airplanes now makes them a natural target and opens it up to copycats. It's easier to get a news headline now by just attempting to bomb a plane than other terrorist means. That's all.

My buddies just told me, "I'd like to get a group of guys together and walk through the airport with massive wood, and then look over at the technician like, 'What?'"

---

I hate to bring math into this, but the most recent one you cited was 14 years ago. 5 years prior to 9/11.

As for your paranoia statement, there are plenty of foiled plots that never got to the "Actually had the explosives and attempted to detonate" stage during the Bush years that were in the media, most of those had nothing to do with airplanes. Did they get as much attention as this failed bombing has? No, but because you didn't have a guy with explosives on a plane, whose own father had warned the U.S. that he had turned radical.

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that any anti-terrorist restriction on travel will foil at least one terrorist action.

Is that enough to justify the restriction?

How many terrorist-caused deaths is too many? Is it one? Ten? Ten thousand?

I've never met anyone who liked it when I ask the question this way. Especially when I tell them that one is NOT too many, and neither, perhaps, is 10,000.

10,000 just happens to be one of the numbers bandied about in the immediate hours and days following 9/11 as a projected death count. It also just happens to be just about the entire population of the Iowa town in which I work and about 8 times the entire population of the town in which I sleep.

My question is this: One of you is a bacterium that, if you are allowed to stay free, are going to take out 8 towns like the one I live in (including mine). Not might take out. Will take out. No uncertainty at all. You're out there. And if you're not stopped, I and 9999 others are going to die.

But the rest of you, all 300-odd million of you --you're going to be just fine. Regardless of whether the bacterium does its evil or not. Regardless of whether I die or not.

So, should I be able to have all of you be scanned to make sure you're not the bacterium?

Personally, I don't think the answer is obviously "yes" in this case of 10000 "certain" deaths. And it is even less obviously "yes" in the real world of uncertainty. Do we really need to protect each other against every 1 in 30,000 risk of death out there?

---