both actually.

edit:
okay, I'll add a little to that.
As a deterrent to terrorism it is horribly ineffective, as there are lots of places you could detonate bombs that are nowwhere near airports and still cause major mayhem. If this isn't clear enough, just ask people from London or Madrid. They might be able to give you some more information.

Terrorism is obviously some kind of threat, but governments have become pretty good at protecting airtravel since 2001. Just compare the number of incidents in the seventies to that of the last ten years. Noone needed body scanners to do that.

There is not terrorist threat that can be addressed by putting up full body scanners on american soil. People who are stupid enough to get caught at airports are more than likely to be stupid enough get caught before they even get there.

Do you see a need for any type of pre-flight security screening?

Do you see a need for pre-train travel security screening? Before going to a football game?

the best "pre"-flight screening is obviously to stop murdering droves of innocent Arab people in the Middle-East.

This is already happening slowly. Not specifically for football games obviously, but subway riders are now being selected for 'random' bag checks in certain cities. Any bets on whether that spreads?

I know a ""pre"-flight screening" to that too.

i quoted myself before you posted to clarify

strange how we weren't doing this before 9/11, but whatever.

Some security is clearly needed, whether or not the security should be this invasive or done by the TSA is a reasonable question.

Trains don't exist in the USA. But if I lived in Madrid or London I would consider the question seriously.

There's some amount of security at every football game I go to as well.

lolololol nice fantasy you're having. the USA has been murdering people in the Middle East and in all other parts of the worst for a long time, guy.

THISSSS

Where and when, exactly, were we murdering people in droves in the Middle East Taso?

eta: before 9/11 obviously.

Dude, everything gives you cancer nowadays. May as well stay out of the sun while you're at it.

A TSA officer told a friend of mine this when he refused the body scanner and cited the article stating that these machines are likely to cause cancer.

Don't lump me in with your murdering, please.


Anyways, you were murdering in the middle east during the Gulf War, certainly?

Could be wrong but top officials here financed Iran-Contra and backed Saddam Hussein before we took him out 20 years later. Not exactly a long history of pacifist behaviour coming from the states.

ikes knows all about that ****. he was hoping to nit up some **** and claim that there's a big difference between giving guns to people and telling them to go kill versus the US army killing people directly, but apparently he forgot about the gulf war or something.

Right, so 1991, and when the people attacked us, was the Gulf War cited as a reason? It wasn't, and the reason why not was that in the Gulf War, we fought on the Sunni's side by defending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The only complaint coming close to that was that we kept bases, at the request of the Saudi government, to ensure Saddam didn't try invading again. Try again.

The simple fact is that there are going to be some group of psychopaths willing to kill people for their cause. The reasons aren't rational and pure acquiescence won't stop them. This fact doesn't mean that the only rational decision is to invade every country to bend them to our will, but the idea that isolating ourselves will ensure our security is simply inane.

go murder some more ****ing innocent people, see how much it improves Muslims opinions of us ikes.

Like I said, you live in a lovely fantasy, but what's really happened is the US has killed thousands of innocent people, it makes their families ODDLY mad, and they try to get revenge. Sorry, guy, that's what happens when you **** up entire countries with your corrupt piece of **** government.

So that's a no, you can't cite anything to support your claim. I think that the Iraq or Afghanistan War drives people to harm the US, and I'm not sure why you are spewing about.

The idea, however, that the most effective way for us to provide security for our airports is to simply move our military out of the middle east is completely idiotic. Even granting your hypothesis that violence will die down because we're not pissing off Muslims anymore, there are a ton of ****ing crazy people out there, and it only takes one to really ruin your flight. Your simple minded notion that Muslims and foreigners are the only cause of disturbances on airplanes is laughable and, just to try this out, racist.

OK. So I take it that you are in favor of full body screening as there exists a real and non-negligible threat of terrorism? Is this a fair reflection of your opinion regarding the thread topic?

Decided to broach this subject with the wife tonight.

She came off like a goose-stepping-tea-party-subscribing-fascist-truther so I gave her an enhanced patdown and left her cowering in the corner in a puddle of sweat.

As a sexual predator I am in love with this.

Their reasons were rational and indeed successful. Bin Laden said that he wanted to draw America into costly new wars, speeding the American Empire's decay into insolvency.

Mission accomplished imo.

did you guys also catch the thing where it was decided that the TSA employees can unionize despite the fact that it was specifically outlawed in the bill?

and people wonder why some of us don't want to rely verbatim on what was passed with the healthcare bill.