Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: The 8 year old terrorist

  1. #1

    Default The 8 year old terrorist

    Mikey Hicks, 8, Canít Get Off U.S. Terror Watch List - NYTimes.com

    Just another example of America's so-called "security measures" being pointless and maybe even harmful to people. In my opinion this is probably going to bother him for the rest of his life and though he seems okay with it now, I just hope it doesn't have an negative effects on him later in his life.

  2. #2

    Default

    Yet more proof that our government is out of control, and that most people will sacrifice any freedom and civil liberties and basically flush the constitution down the toilet in order to gain a sense of security from terrorists.

    I have heard of this problem before with the TSA watchlists on an aviation forum I occasionally visit. Their lists have no way of distinguishing between different people with the same name. Apparently, this has been going on for years, and the TSA and the DHS still have yet to start making that distinction (which, it seems to me, would be quite simple- they could simply add distinguishing information like date of birth, place of birth, current residence, appearance characteristics, etc.). So anyone with the same name as a suspect can't fly. Also their reasons for putting suspects on the list are quite ridiculous- no probable cause is needed. I remember hearing about a pilot for Colgan Air who was in danger of losing his job because he'd been placed in this list, and no reason was given for his placement on the list, although it likely had to do with the fact that he was a convert to Islam and his wife was a Pakistani immigrant. I guess DHS doesn't like the Fourth Ammendment very much.

    This case takes the lunacy to a whole new level. You'd think that the TSA would realize that a two-year-old (how old the boy was when he got his first pat-down) or even an eight-year-old poses no threat, but rational thought seems to be very difficult for whoever is in charge there.

    Really, I think the whole airport screening system we have is pointless. Our government is obsessed with screening for a very specific model of terrorist attack- the kind used on 9/11, and they spend millions if not billions of tax dollars every year to prevent that specific type of attack. Which is stupid when you consider that the 9/11 model became obsolete the moment that the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 rebelled against the hijackers. Never again will passengers think a hijacked aircraft is going anywhere except the side of a building, and now that they will think they're going to die anyway, they will resist. Anyone who attempts to hijack an airliner will have to fight off every passenger on the plane. No weapon will be useful against passengers, who will likely arm themselves with heavy suitcases. Even firearms would be of limited utility, because the terrorist probably wouldn't have enough ammunition to kill every passenger on the plane, especially not in the time it would take for them to subdue him or her. And remember, even guns won't scare passengers who think they're going to die in a crash anyway. I know I would certainly resist, and I'm sure anyone else would to.

    The DHS and the TSA have so little faith in vigilantism, even though it would work quite well to stop a hijacking. Personally, I find it very odd that in our society, people have more freedom to own firearms, to carry and conceal them in public, and to defend ourselves against criminals with them than just about anywhere else in the world, and yet we trust the government to keep us safe whenever we fly and unquestioningly obey all the stupid rules they make in the name of security.

    I'm telling you, we're headed down a slippery slope. Before you know it, security checkpoints will include strip searches, rectal probes, and full-body MRIs- even for babies. The only way we'll be safe from terrorists is to throw out all the constitution, don't you know.

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default

    I like how some of the American lunatic fringe like to dismiss ideas on the basis that they were created by people who actually know what they're talking about; the so-called "educated class". That's really a special kind of insanity.

    That being said I was in NYC recently, and other than a lack of good health care, it's very much like Toronto in Canada. People are very sensible.

  5. #5

    Default

    Really? REALLY?!

    One day we'll all be flying naked and being probed up our asses. BECAUSE CLOTHES CAN BE USED AS BOMBS. (probably, ya never know)

    But seriously, an 8 YEAR OLD? I'm 19, and when I was patted down at an airport last month because I was wearing a hoodie (wtf? really?) I nearly had an aggression attack due to sexual abuse I suffered from as a kid. Didn't help that I was bra-less.

  6. #6

    Default

    This is just sad, I feel bad for that poor kid.

    Our world is broken, this is just more proof of that...

  7. #7
    Mako

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Yocky View Post
    Yet more proof that our government is out of control, and that most people will sacrifice any freedom and civil liberties and basically flush the constitution down the toilet in order to gain a sense of security from terrorists.

    I have heard of this problem before with the TSA watchlists on an aviation forum I occasionally visit. Their lists have no way of distinguishing between different people with the same name. Apparently, this has been going on for years, and the TSA and the DHS still have yet to start making that distinction (which, it seems to me, would be quite simple- they could simply add distinguishing information like date of birth, place of birth, current residence, appearance characteristics, etc.). So anyone with the same name as a suspect can't fly. Also their reasons for putting suspects on the list are quite ridiculous- no probable cause is needed. I remember hearing about a pilot for Colgan Air who was in danger of losing his job because he'd been placed in this list, and no reason was given for his placement on the list, although it likely had to do with the fact that he was a convert to Islam and his wife was a Pakistani immigrant. I guess DHS doesn't like the Fourth Ammendment very much.

    This case takes the lunacy to a whole new level. You'd think that the TSA would realize that a two-year-old (how old the boy was when he got his first pat-down) or even an eight-year-old poses no threat, but rational thought seems to be very difficult for whoever is in charge there.

    Really, I think the whole airport screening system we have is pointless. Our government is obsessed with screening for a very specific model of terrorist attack- the kind used on 9/11, and they spend millions if not billions of tax dollars every year to prevent that specific type of attack. Which is stupid when you consider that the 9/11 model became obsolete the moment that the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 rebelled against the hijackers. Never again will passengers think a hijacked aircraft is going anywhere except the side of a building, and now that they will think they're going to die anyway, they will resist. Anyone who attempts to hijack an airliner will have to fight off every passenger on the plane. No weapon will be useful against passengers, who will likely arm themselves with heavy suitcases. Even firearms would be of limited utility, because the terrorist probably wouldn't have enough ammunition to kill every passenger on the plane, especially not in the time it would take for them to subdue him or her. And remember, even guns won't scare passengers who think they're going to die in a crash anyway. I know I would certainly resist, and I'm sure anyone else would to.

    The DHS and the TSA have so little faith in vigilantism, even though it would work quite well to stop a hijacking. Personally, I find it very odd that in our society, people have more freedom to own firearms, to carry and conceal them in public, and to defend ourselves against criminals with them than just about anywhere else in the world, and yet we trust the government to keep us safe whenever we fly and unquestioningly obey all the stupid rules they make in the name of security.
    Maybe because flight 93 crashed into the ground? Waiting until the plane is hi-jacked to act is naive. The past few attacks on air planes have not been for the purpose of repeating 9/11, they've been solely for the purpose of blowing up the plane. Something that the screening does take huge steps against.

    Using the issues with the no fly list as a launching pad for an attack on airport security in general is ignorant to the purpose of things that have been implemented. To prevent improvised explosives from appearing on the plane concocted by lunatics who want to go down in a blaze of glory.



    I'm telling you, we're headed down a slippery slope. Before you know it, security checkpoints will include strip searches, rectal probes, and full-body MRIs- even for babies. The only way we'll be safe from terrorists is to throw out all the constitution, don't you know.
    You know, except the fourth amendment is to do with UNREASONABLE searches. Don't want to be searched, take the bus. By taking an aircraft you are submitting yourself to such situations. Now do I believe your current proposition of where the slippery slope may lead is what is going to happen? No. It's overkill that's unneeded. After full body scanners it becomes quite apparent if anything is being hidden.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mako View Post
    Maybe because flight 93 crashed into the ground? Waiting until the plane is hi-jacked to act is naive. The past few attacks on air planes have not been for the purpose of repeating 9/11, they've been solely for the purpose of blowing up the plane. Something that the screening does take huge steps against.
    Yes, it is naive to wait until the aircraft is already hijacked. Believe me, the moment anyone even ATTEMPTS to hijack an aircraft, they will be set upon by other passengers. That is exactly what happened in the attempted bombing last month. If anything, I think the fact that the passengers subdued the attempted bomber and played such a large role in preventing the attack proves that such intensive screening is unnecessary.




    Using the issues with the no fly list as a launching pad for an attack on airport security in general is ignorant to the purpose of things that have been implemented. To prevent improvised explosives from appearing on the plane concocted by lunatics who want to go down in a blaze of glory.
    I'm sorry, I suppose maybe not everything I said was relevant, but airport security is one of my pet peeves, and I still think most security procedures are excessive and unnecessary.




    You know, except the fourth amendment is to do with UNREASONABLE searches. Don't want to be searched, take the bus. By taking an aircraft you are submitting yourself to such situations. Now do I believe your current proposition of where the slippery slope may lead is what is going to happen? No. It's overkill that's unneeded. After full body scanners it becomes quite apparent if anything is being hidden.
    Are you saying that the act of traveling onboard an aircraft in probable cause? You act as thought most people flying on airliners are criminals or terrorists, and that is exactly the kind of attitude that is gradually turning our nation (and apparently yours, too) into a police state. Everyone is a suspect.

    You say "don't want to be searched, take a bus". But why not implement the same security procedures for buses? It seems to me that bombing a bus would be just as devastating as bombing an airliner. Both vehicles typically carry a large number of passengers in a small space, and a bombing onboard either would kill scores of people and be a devastating terrorist attack. The only reason we don't have the same procedures is because most people naturally fear flying, and thus the find terrorist attacks carried out on airplanes more terrifying. That is why terrorists carry out this kind of attack more often, and it is why society accepts authoritarian security procedures for air travel but not bus travel: they think of flying as inherently dangerous, and thus they will accept any curtailment of their freedom for the illusion of making it safer.

    Statements like "don't want to be searched, take a bus" only help us slide down that slippery slope. Soon, there will be security on buses, and it will be "don't want to be searched, drive yourself", and of course anyone who is not fortunate enough to own a car will not be able to go anywhere. Then search checkpoints will be set up at strategic intervals on all roads to inspect private vehicles, and people like you will say "Don't want to be searched, just walk". After all, by driving a car, you will be submitting yourself to such situations. Then similar checkpoints will be set up on sidewalks, and eventually, if you don't want to be searched, you'll just have to stay home.

  9. #9
    Mako

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Yocky View Post
    Yes, it is naive to wait until the aircraft is already hijacked. Believe me, the moment anyone even ATTEMPTS to hijack an aircraft, they will be set upon by other passengers. That is exactly what happened in the attempted bombing last month. If anything, I think the fact that the passengers subdued the attempted bomber and played such a large role in preventing the attack proves that such intensive screening is unnecessary.
    You're jumping to the conclusion that passengers will be successful every time. That every flight into the U.S. will have the exact same reaction, domestic and foreign, and relying on them always being successful. It's more sensible to try and prevent the situation from ever occurring.



    I'm sorry, I suppose maybe not everything I said was relevant, but airport security is one of my pet peeves, and I still think most security procedures are excessive and unnecessary.
    They're there to prevent unneeded and dangerous situations from occurring in air.



    Are you saying that the act of traveling onboard an aircraft in probable cause? You act as thought most people flying on airliners are criminals or terrorists, and that is exactly the kind of attitude that is gradually turning our nation (and apparently yours, too) into a police state. Everyone is a suspect.
    Just like the exception at borders there's an exception while flying. Everyone IS a potential terrorist. Reversing security measures implemented only puts passengers in more danger.



    You say "don't want to be searched, take a bus". But why not implement the same security procedures for buses? It seems to me that bombing a bus would be just as devastating as bombing an airliner.
    A bus doesn't drop out of the air and has less potential for collateral destruction.



    Both vehicles typically carry a large number of passengers in a small space, and a bombing onboard either would kill scores of people and be a devastating terrorist attack. The only reason we don't have the same procedures is because most people naturally fear flying, and thus the find terrorist attacks carried out on airplanes more terrifying. That is why terrorists carry out this kind of attack more often, and it is why society accepts authoritarian security procedures for air travel but not bus travel: they think of flying as inherently dangerous, and thus they will accept any curtailment of their freedom for the illusion of making it safer.
    Because being in the air does have more potential danger then being on the ground. Collateral damage potential between air and bus is the reason why air is more targeted.



    Statements like "don't want to be searched, take a bus" only help us slide down that slippery slope. Soon, there will be security on buses, and it will be "don't want to be searched, drive yourself", and of course anyone who is not fortunate enough to own a car will not be able to go anywhere. Then search checkpoints will be set up at strategic intervals on all roads to inspect private vehicles, and people like you will say "Don't want to be searched, just walk". After all, by driving a car, you will be submitting yourself to such situations. Then similar checkpoints will be set up on sidewalks, and eventually, if you don't want to be searched, you'll just have to stay home.
    What? There's no basis for this paranoid speculation. Fight your strawmen else where.
    You set up an unrealistic situation, based off absolutely nothing other then your own paranoia, then used that situation as if it were already fact to justify the likelihood of other absurd things.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NoahKokoro View Post
    Mikey Hicks, 8, Can’t Get Off U.S. Terror Watch List - NYTimes.com

    Just another example of America's so-called "security measures" being pointless and maybe even harmful to people. In my opinion this is probably going to bother him for the rest of his life and though he seems okay with it now, I just hope it doesn't have an negative effects on him later in his life.
    That just fucking stupid. Do they really expect a 8 year old to blow up or hiljack a plane?




    Quote Originally Posted by NeiNei View Post
    Really? REALLY?!

    One day we'll all be flying naked and being probed up our asses. BECAUSE CLOTHES CAN BE USED AS BOMBS. (probably, ya never know)

    But seriously, an 8 YEAR OLD? I'm 19, and when I was patted down at an airport last month because I was wearing a hoodie (wtf? really?) I nearly had an aggression attack due to sexual abuse I suffered from as a kid. Didn't help that I was bra-less.
    I'm not surprised about the hoodie thing. In a city next to my town, there are places where you can't wear a hoodie or have your hoodie up due to the crime that been going around.

Similar Threads

  1. Modern Warfare 2: Terrorist Controversy
    By Dawes in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 20-Nov-2009, 05:00
  2. End of Year
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-Jun-2009, 19:37
  3. See you next year o.<
    By Rational in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-Jan-2009, 01:29
  4. About That time of year
    By Matrix Blade in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-Mar-2008, 23:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.