major blooper by usa

@salima,

I didn't mention fear or paranoia I said "security checks", there is a distinct difference between the two.

0 Replies

@salima,

There is a saying, "Those who are willing to give up their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

Sounds rather harsh but it carries with it a message that is often ignored. Pulling someone because of their name or because of their look is wrong. Profiling groups is wrong. The problem is not in trying to prevent another attack, the problem is getting the government to quit stirring up trouble and letting innocent people get killed for it. If you really want to catch a terrorist, look in dc.

1 Reply

@salima,

So what are you saying that we should just let people get on planes on unchecked and have the attacks happen all over again or have you missed my point. Before the WT attacks Clinton was concerned about domestic security but didn't get anywhere because it cost too much, that is the point I'm making, security.

0 Replies

@salima,

The point is, if they really wanted to get aboard they would do it. There are plenty of westerners who are sympathizers that would do the same. You really think they would send someone knowing that they would be profiled? You should give them a little more credit than that. Think about it. The illusion of security but at any time if they wanted to could do the same thing they did.

So why don't they do it? Because they have already won. They have pulled the US into a match that will ultimately leave the US bankrupt and depleted. It is the same tactic the US used against the soviet union, if you force them into economic crisis to pay for military action for prolong periods of time you will cause instability. There is no need for them to make any more attacks because they have already succeeded.

The only thing left is for them to wait it out until the US has to pull the troops back and a power vacuum within the middle east will ensue for a little while but we all know it will be just as bad if not worse than before.

1 Reply

@salima,

Did I say not everyone should be checked? Did I say just check the ones that look suspect? No I didn't. Point is they didn't have proper security in the first place because it cost too much or dont you read my posts and just stick up your own opinion without actaully reading what I said. Right so on that notion, that they wont attack again lets just forget about security checks then shall we.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;88117 wrote:

There is a saying, "Those who are willing to give up their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

Sounds rather harsh but it carries with it a message that is often ignored. Pulling someone because of their name or because of their look is wrong. Profiling groups is wrong. The problem is not in trying to prevent another attack, the problem is getting the government to quit stirring up trouble and letting innocent people get killed for it. If you really want to catch a terrorist, look in dc.

We give up our liberty for security many times. For instance, we give up our liberty to drive as we please for the security of being able to drive in relative safety. That is why we have traffic laws. So what Benjamin Franklin said, which you quoted is nothing we really believe. Wouldn't you give up your liberty to drive just as you please, for the security of being able to drive safely? It looks a little different when you leave the abstract (which sounds so good) for the concrete, doesn't it? I certainly want suspicious investigated before I get on the plane. And so, no doubt would the crew.

0 Replies

@salima,

Which is why I tried to make a distinction between racism and security. There is alot of unnecessary things happening to people and mistakes are made, bad mistakes but what is a mistake sometimes gets turned into accusations of racism, racism does go on and that is down to ignorance which also leads to mistakes, bad mistakes.

0 Replies

@salima,

I'll say it again, Krumple, you've gone way off topic, I wasn't talking about terrorism, I was talking about security at airports like the op said, I brought up the attacks to suggest why one might be nervous and if they had the proper security in the first place then it would never have happeneed. I'm not interested in talking politics with you and that's another subject anyway for a different thread.

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline;88214 wrote:

I'll say it again, Krumple, you've gone way off topic, I wasn't talking about terrorism, I was talking about security at airports like the op said, I brought up the attacks to suggest why one might be nervous and if they had the proper security in the first place then it would never have happeneed. I'm not interested in talking politics with you and that's another subject anyway for a different thread.

how is terrorism off topic when the reason they detained this person was because his name was on a badly composed and poorly maintained list of suspected terrorists?

it seems silly to me that an actor with as high as profile as this man would be trying to get into the country to commit some acts of terror. there are two issues at play here, one is the idea of 'homeland security' which cant be separated from politics. the other is airport and airline safety which should not be a political issue, but it is being encroached upon by the government.

1 Reply

@salima,

I said terrorism is off topic because from there Krumple went on to talk about politics and I'll say it again, I'm talking about security and racism not politics, when I say it's not realated to politics I meant in this thread for practical reasons, sorry it wasn't clear to you. I think security is necessary no matter what the reasons why, whether it be for terrorism or any other crime, I think that stating why terrorists aren't going to attack the US or whatever Krumple was talking about is really another subject. Thanks.

0 Replies

@salima,

After seeing this thread I did some poking around on the net; mostly news reports on this event. Here are my thoughts:

Anyone who's been through a security checkpoint, trying to enter any country that's hyper sensitive is likely to have issues, be delayed, etc.; this shouldn't be a large surprise to anyone.

Large, mindless bureaucracies like the U.S., are notorious for over compensating blindly in an effort to try and play it safe.

If any nation wants ultimate security, they're going to upset a LOT of people. If they want open borders and free flow, they're going to compromise security - it's very hard to have it both ways

Racial Profiling and their "watch for this name"-system are both really iffy and will inevitably lead to outrage. This has been the case with this particular policy for a long, long time.

I've been stopped, searched and delayed at a number of airports (mostly after 911) and didn't call any news service - maybe I should have. Somehow I doubt I'd have gotten much air time.

Celebrities, to me, rate just above used car salesman and just below telemarketers; even so, they don't deserve any more or less consideration than anyone else.

I can't justify the dumbness of U.S. entrance policies that are largely ineffective; I wouldn't even try. But I will say this, I can understand the intent.

... just my two cents.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;87849 wrote:

The US lost a few thousand souls on 9/11, and that is a terrible tragedy. But SouthEast Asia lost a few million when American pilots rained down napalm on helpless villagers, searing the flesh off of women, children, and elderly. Before we point fingers, perhaps we should take care of our own mistakes.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you're going to justify it I think the AL qaeda being fed up with the UK and US troops invading and bombing is a better reason for the 9/11 attacks. Yes we all kill each other but it has to stop somewhere. I cannot blame the AL qaeda for feeling the way they do about the US and the UK but don't forget thousands of innocent people died who most knew nothing of this war, children left without their parents, whilst you continue to say well we did this to so and so more people die on both sides, more innocent women and children on both sides, it has to stop with someone. We are not involved in this war willingly and more people die and until it is your father or mother who burns horribly in an attack then it easy for us not to see that this carnage has to stop somewhere with someone now but that is just a pipe dream. Sad

And until then we all sit back in our armchairs and fail to remember the cries of the children who lost their lives and we fail to hear them everytime because we sit and say nothing and so be it for the future of your children and theirs. Because you know why? Nothing ever changes, man is greedy, we can share but no we have to mess it up for our kids.

1 Reply

@salima,

I had to bring up politics, because if you want to treat the illness you shouldn't go after the symptoms but instead the cause. This whole mess is caused by the government on both sides and the cure they are trying to use isn't even a cure, but instead just an illusion of security. Think about it. You really think a person wanting to do harm is going to come in to the US with a name which is on a high security list? They would surely be discovered. There are a lot of American Muslims in the US, they would probably use a person like that.

But to avoid people asking why haven't they attacked using an American Muslim I had to go into the fact that they won't attack anymore because they have already achieved their goal. To strain the US economy by pulling it into a war of financial attrition. Yet we still profile people and detain innocent people.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;88119 wrote:

So why don't they do it? Because they have already won. They have pulled the US into a match that will ultimately leave the US bankrupt and depleted. It is the same tactic the US used against the soviet union, if you force them into economic crisis to pay for military action for prolong periods of time you will cause instability. There is no need for them to make any more attacks because they have already succeeded.

The only thing left is for them to wait it out until the US has to pull the troops back and a power vacuum within the middle east will ensue for a little while but we all know it will be just as bad if not worse than before.

This has nothing to do with the OP please stop going off subject, I will not talk politics with you, sigh, one more time, I'm talking about why people get stopped at airports, is it security is it racism? We will never know because some people just like to score points, some like to rant, some in their ignorance and fear like to make fun of others posts either way it isn't debate is it? Debate is when you actully listen and I mean list en to what the other is saying and being open to new ideas not come in with your own agenda, how immature and shortsighted is that? People must really like living in the dark.

Thank you Krumple please dont bother.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;88430 wrote:

But to avoid people asking why haven't they attacked using an American Muslim I had to go into the fact that they won't attack anymore because they have already achieved their goal. To strain the US economy by pulling it into a war of financial attrition. Yet we still profile people and detain innocent people.

We don't have to vaccinate against the flu, nor do we have to take any other precautions any more, since those people who are vulnerable to the flu have already had the flu.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;88430 wrote:

I had to bring up politics, because if you want to treat the illness you shouldn't go after the symptoms but instead the cause. This whole mess is caused by the government on both sides and the cure they are trying to use isn't even a cure, but instead just an illusion of security. Think about it. You really think a person wanting to do harm is going to come in to the US with a name which is on a high security list? They would surely be discovered. There are a lot of American Muslims in the US, they would probably use a person like that.

But to avoid people asking why haven't they attacked using an American Muslim I had to go into the fact that they won't attack anymore because they have already achieved their goal. To strain the US economy by pulling it into a war of financial attrition. Yet we still profile people and detain innocent people.

i had also wondered why they didnt attack any more, i assumed it was because they meant only to make a statement and that it had been received. but your theory is certainly believable. isnt it amazing how one act of terror was enough to cause a chain of events and wreak havoc until the system defeated itself and finished the job. i dont know if they really thought that far ahead or it just worked out that way, but it is incredible how many people arent catching on even now.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;88449 wrote:

We don't have to vaccinate against the flu, nor do we have to take any other precautions any more, since those people who are vulnerable to the flu have already had the flu.

Are people a flu? There is such a small portion of people who are willing to do drastic harm, I guess you could call them a flu but if you really think about it, it can never be cured because there will always be someone who disagrees with the current system. Weather or not they take drastic measures to get their message out there will not be hindered by any sort of profiling.

If the police really wanted to catch criminals. Why don't they just go house to house to house and run everyone's name into their database? Why don't we install cameras into peoples homes to monitor their actions? If they are doing something illegal we can nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand.

How about this system? Before you board a plane you are escorted into a room and all your items are removed from you. You are given a jumpsuit like in prison to wear and everyone is filed on board like that? You couldn't sneak anything onto the plane because everything you were carrying was taken away. Then all your belongings are sent on for processing and you will get them back at your destination?

I mean if you are going to treat people like they might be guilty, why not treat them as if they ARE guilty? Remove everyone's freedom, and it would give everyone the ultimate security. So why don't we do that?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Caroline;88422 wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you're going to justify it I think the AL qaeda being fed up with the UK and US troops invading and bombing is a better reason for the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not trying to justify the response of Muslim extremists - instead, I am pointing out blatant hypocrisy in American policy.

Caroline;88422 wrote:

Yes we all kill each other but it has to stop somewhere. I cannot blame the AL qaeda for feeling the way they do about the US and the UK but don't forget thousands of innocent people died who most knew nothing of this war, children left without their parents, whilst you continue to say well we did this to so and so more people die on both sides, more innocent women and children on both sides, it has to stop with someone.

Sure, it has to stop - should stop. But current US policy is not going to diminish senseless killing in the world.

Caroline;88422 wrote:

Nothing ever changes, man is greedy, we can share but no we have to mess it up for our kids.

Positive change is possible - only difficult to implement. We need the right kind of leaders to make it a reality. I do not see any prominent leaders of that stripe. And there's our problem.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;88495 wrote:

I'm not trying to justify the response of Muslim extremists - instead, I am pointing out blatant hypocrisy in American policy.

Yeah I know, I'm sorry DT, I honestly didn't mean to direct that at you because I think you've raised a good point I just didn't word it very well. It is hypocrisy but what I'm trying to say is that innocent people die and suffer horrific deaths and injuries and experiences amongst this hypocrisy and this is what I was trying to highlight, I'm sorry for not portraying myself well.

0 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline;88422 wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you're going to justify it I think the AL qaeda being fed up with the UK and US troops invading and bombing is a better reason for the 9/11 attacks.

How could Al Quaeda be justified for the 9/11 attacks by the Iraq and Afganistan invasions when the invasions took place after the 9/11 attacks, and were in response to them?

1 Reply

major blooper by usa

Quick Links

My Account

able2know