#37627 - 02/17/05 02:51 AM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Old Hand
Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 740
Loc: Florida
|
I'm often unsure of what the solution is to in-air terrorism. I think we should do.... nothing. Absolutely nothing. Pull the TSA security, stop checking IDs, all of it. The one thing we could do is educate the public about the relative threat various "terrorist" attacks pose. Show how giving into the fear is giving the terrorists what they want. Equate contempt for terrorists with patriotism. Smoking, obesity, traffic accidents, the freakin' FLU kill orders of magnitude more people than any terrorist attack to date. The solution to terrorism is to ignore it. Quietly work to eliminate it, sure. But the general population should go on as if nothing's wrong. Because, based on the numbers, nothing IS wrong.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37628 - 02/17/05 03:06 AM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Member
Registered: 05/25/04
Posts: 153
Loc: California
|
Well said. Robert
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37629 - 02/17/05 04:10 AM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 3824
|
I remember right after 9/11 several forum boards coming up with every alternate tool or subterfuge to get a weapon or survival tool on board an aircraft. Well, suprise, even if your dressed like a 1000 year old arthritic leprechaun shilleleaghs are going to draw attention ( and being historically a weapon should) The real world out there hasn't changed. The odds fortuitously are against crashing on Vanu Atu, the Andes or getting hijacked. The odds of surviving a major crash are sadly even less. The odds go down even further that having survived a crash we won't be located reasonably soon. Yes, you could be a rare statistic and wind up eating Bountyhunter in the afghan mountains. But for the majority of us mailing our PSKs or EDC, BOB, FAK on ahead will avoid the FAA, CIA,FBI and we will be just as prepared in the real world. I'm more concerned with the Hare Krishnas shoving carnations in my face, getting a wingside seat by an emergency exit and hoping my brand of whiskey is on board to dull my survival reflexes anyway <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37630 - 02/17/05 02:53 PM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Registered: 11/13/01
Posts: 1784
Loc: Collegeville, PA, USA
|
I think the flying public may reach the end of its patience soon.
Instead of a grudging acceptance of new restrictions, I've been hearing much more of a disbelieving rumble on the web.
This is usually followed by a rising tide of enough's enough.
You're right. Let's wait and see.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37631 - 02/17/05 06:18 PM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Geezer
Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 5163
Loc: W. WA
|
The Intelligence Reform Act = obviously not all that much intelligence involved, IMO.
And just HOW would a few matches or a lighter in checked luggage be a danger?
"... the TSA is concerned about prohibiting items that it cannot detect".
If they SAW a fireboard and spindle in your luggage, would they even know what it was?
"There is a concern that we just simply do not create rules that inconvenience the public but do not enhance our security capability." I wonder just how many illegal aliens from the middle east they've caught since Homeland Security was created?
I do wonder how much HS has done to REALLY prevent further terrorism?
So much of this BS is just eyewash, I think, much like companies that come up with all these "morale-boosting" ideas that wouldn't be needed if the people in charge had a working brain. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />
Sue
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37632 - 02/17/05 06:57 PM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Old Hand
Registered: 08/28/04
Posts: 835
Loc: Maple Grove, MN
|
"If they SAW a fireboard and spindle in your luggage, would they even know what it was?"
Or what about a fire piston and a few scraps of char cloth and tinder?
_________________________
- Benton
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37633 - 02/17/05 07:26 PM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Registered: 11/13/01
Posts: 1784
Loc: Collegeville, PA, USA
|
Intelligence Reform is another classic oxymoron.
We must first have intelligence before anyone tries reforming it. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37634 - 02/19/05 05:28 PM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
This is a typical response to any perceived security or social agenda issue in this country. Implement more laws for criminals to ignore in the commission of their crimes. In this case, specifically, Richard Reid may have been able to light his shoe bomb undetected if he had used a lighter instead of matches. Let's ignore the fact that it was already illegal for him to a.) manufacture an explosive/destructive device and b.) transport said device onboard a commercial aircraft. There's probably half a dozen other statutes that were violated as well.
1. Make bomb - check 2. Smuggle bomb on plane - check 3. Light fuse - Dang it! I turned in my matches at the gate <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37635 - 02/19/05 08:06 PM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources aboard airliners
|
Veteran
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 1320
Loc: France
|
I guess all of you completly miss the point of this law : - from now on, terrorists will fear to be fined for carrying a lighter aboard.... too big a risk .... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
_________________________
Alain
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37636 - 02/20/05 12:40 AM
Re: U.S. to ban flame sources-E.F.E.
|
Registered: 11/14/03
Posts: 1224
Loc: Milwaukee, WI USA
|
Frenchy:
I find it hard to believe that no one on this forum has any friends in Government service that is willing to lose their job and pension by telling us about the dreaded E.F.E. procedure.
Once again I will have to be the lone turkey seeking to be an Eagle by sticking my head above the crowd and "spreading?" the word.
Many things may change and words will have different meanings if the E.F.E. procedure is instituted.
Telling your boss to "Blow it out his ###!" may be seen as a Homeland security concern instead of an insult.
Telling a person you dislike to "Stick it up your ###!" will be looked at as being a party to illegal attempts to get by the TSA inspectors.
A business person saying "I've got to run now" may have a whole new meaning and anyone working on a business deal in the airports who says "I have to sit on it", or "I'll have to sleep on it", will risk being thrown to the ground, handcuffed and hauled away. Anyone with stomach problems will be looked at suspiciously.
For the time being, we are being protected by anal retentive people who are thus far a majority over anal explosive people. The increasing amount of giggling as more people learn about the possible introduction of the E.F.E. procedure does not bode well for the retentive majority as the explosive minority seems to be converting some borderline potty sitters.
Run out and buy Kohler, Toto, American Standard, and Crane plumbing company stocks, so that at the very least, you will profit somewhat when the E.F.E. procedure is rammed into our society that travels by air.
"E.F.E." stands for:
ENEMAS FOR EVERYONE! ! !
Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
0 registered (),
870
Guests and
39
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|