By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Little terrorist or big pedophile?

sperrico87 on 19 March 2012
NiKKoM said:

meh.. I think the TSA guy is pretty nice... the wheelchair must have bleeped so he is supposed to check it.. just because it's a kid it doesn't mean a parent can't plant drugs on him to take abroad.. and well old people.. they are just plain dangerous when flying.. always bringing stuff they aren't supposed to bring with them too fly..

The agent didn't beat the kid, he handled it with care and compassion, and within three minutes... what's to complain about


What's to complain about? Are you kidding? Do you enjoy living under a police state?

Those who sacrifice liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither.



 

Around the Network
enrageorange on 19 March 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
sperrico87 said:

If the government had allowed pilots to have a pistol in the cockpit, none of this would have ever happened.

Pre-9/11:
Feds to airlines: "Your pilots aren't allowed to carry a weapon with them on a plane, and if you're hijacked, do not resist."
Terrorists: "There's nothing stopping us now."

Why just pilots, and why just pistols?

completely valid point. All passangers should be supplied with rpgs whenever they enter an airplane. That will teach any potential terrorists.


As for the original point. The reason they were told not to resist is because prior to 9/11 most airplane highjackings involved landing in some foreign country and trying to get money and political consesions from the plane's home country. It wasn't worth it to risk having a plane go down due to a struggle.
As for the whole pilots should have guns thing, i'm no expert in aircraft saftey, but i'm pretty sure the last thing you would want is to get in a shootout with terrorists in an airplane. It will probably cause more civilian casualties than  just staying barricaded in the cockpit and landing the plane safely.  Especially considering every single passanger will be attempting to subdue the wouldbeterrorist.



Gilgamesh on 19 March 2012

Sure its a little overkill, but it's not like it's that big of a deal. I mean it took 3 minutes of there time...common guys who cares.



sperrico87 on 19 March 2012
enrageorange said:
SamuelRSmith said:
sperrico87 said:

If the government had allowed pilots to have a pistol in the cockpit, none of this would have ever happened.

Pre-9/11:
Feds to airlines: "Your pilots aren't allowed to carry a weapon with them on a plane, and if you're hijacked, do not resist."
Terrorists: "There's nothing stopping us now."

Why just pilots, and why just pistols?

completely valid point. All passangers should be supplied with rpgs whenever they enter an airplane. That will teach any potential terrorists.


As for the original point. The reason they were told not to resist is because prior to 9/11 most airplane highjackings involved landing in some foreign country and trying to get money and political consesions from the plane's home country. It wasn't worth it to risk having a plane go down due to a struggle.
As for the whole pilots should have guns thing, i'm no expert in aircraft saftey, but i'm pretty sure the last thing you would want is to get in a shootout with terrorists in an airplane. It will probably cause more civilian casualties than  just staying barricaded in the cockpit and landing the plane safely.  Especially considering every single passanger will be attempting to subdue the wouldbeterrorist.

On 9/11, some passengers did exactly that.  They attempted to subdue the terrorists on flight 93 and the plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, and it was originally intended to crash into the White House.  Unless I'm missing something here, wouldn't it be more desireable to have it out with the terrorists while on the plane then do nothing and have it crash into a giant skyscraper with thousands of people inside?

You're suggesting doing the same exact thing that Feds suggested prior to 9/11, which is to do absolutely nothing and just hand over the plane? We're supposed to LEARN from our mistakes, not repeat them.



 

Millenium on 19 March 2012
NiKKoM said:

meh.. I think the TSA guy is pretty nice... the wheelchair must have bleeped so he is supposed to check it.. just because it's a kid it doesn't mean a parent can't plant drugs on him to take abroad.. and well old people.. they are just plain dangerous when flying.. always bringing stuff they aren't supposed to bring with them too fly..

The agent didn't beat the kid, he handled it with care and compassion, and within three minutes... what's to complain about


I have to agree with NiKKoM here, the TSA officer wasn't at all acting intimidating, aggressive, or even unfriendly.

In my opinion this is just a silly reaction from both sides, obviously the kid wasn't going to bomb anyone, but on the other hand it is the TSA officers job to check him, and he did so with all the care he could.

Another case of "being blown out of proportion" more than year after the fact (In my opinion).



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 19 March 2012
enrageorange said:
SamuelRSmith said:
sperrico87 said:

If the government had allowed pilots to have a pistol in the cockpit, none of this would have ever happened.

Pre-9/11:
Feds to airlines: "Your pilots aren't allowed to carry a weapon with them on a plane, and if you're hijacked, do not resist."
Terrorists: "There's nothing stopping us now."

Why just pilots, and why just pistols?

completely valid point. All passangers should be supplied with rpgs whenever they enter an airplane. That will teach any potential terrorists.

Yeah, because that's not taking something to an extreme.



NintendoPie on 19 March 2012

That's ridiculous. TSA are a bunch of idiots. I know that they're told to do these things, but really? A kid, a kid. I'll repeat it one more time a FREAKING KID!



sperrico87 on 19 March 2012
Millenium said:
NiKKoM said:

meh.. I think the TSA guy is pretty nice... the wheelchair must have bleeped so he is supposed to check it.. just because it's a kid it doesn't mean a parent can't plant drugs on him to take abroad.. and well old people.. they are just plain dangerous when flying.. always bringing stuff they aren't supposed to bring with them too fly..

The agent didn't beat the kid, he handled it with care and compassion, and within three minutes... what's to complain about


I have to agree with NiKKoM here, the TSA officer wasn't at all acting intimidating, aggressive, or even unfriendly.

In my opinion this is just a silly reaction from both sides, obviously the kid wasn't going to bomb anyone, but on the other hand it is the TSA officers job to check him, and he did so with all the care he could.

Another case of "being blown out of proportion" more than year after the fact (In my opinion).


I don't think anyone is blaming the TSA officer. He was following orders.  We're upset in general with being treated like suspected terrorists until proven innocent, which is the opposite of how it's supposed to be.  Unless I'm mistaken, we still have something called the 4th amendment, right?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



 

Porcupine_I on 19 March 2012

that will teach them terrorists!



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

killerzX on 19 March 2012

the terrorists have won