Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Score another victory for the terrorists

Topic Closed

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Score another victory for the terrorists (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Score another victory for the terrorists

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-27-2009 10:52 PM

Yeah...instead of all this crap, why not ban all flights between Amsterdam or Nigeria and the U.S. for a month or so? The economic hit would be such that they might get their security thumbs out of their butts.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 12-28-2009 12:31 PM

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
The no liquids rule from UK airports is annoying

Isn't that from all airports, not just UK airports? Or is this something new? (last time I flew through a UK airport was in January 2009) Seemed to me that the liquid ban was pretty much uniform between North America & Europe (the only continents I've flown to/from).

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-28-2009 01:45 PM

What you propose about banning service to the Netherlands and Nigeria for a period of time because of last weeks incidents does not make any sense, Mike. What you propose is exactly the same as the airport security measures that has been put into place because of what some terrorists has done. Too many innocent people will suffer. One of my close friend is from Nigeria and now lives with his wife in Los Angeles. He comes from a fine family and I was told they are al exactlyl like him- very wonderful people! Just the thought of punishing these people for something a terrorist tried to do is not the proper thing to do.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-28-2009 01:50 PM

Claude, to play Devil's advocate for a minute, far more innocent people suffer due to TSA's "false sense of security" harassment because of the work of a terrorist. How is THAT fair?

What's worse, how is it fair for everyone on the plane to suffer just because some people reproduce and are bad parents to their screaming child? (No problem with good parents, but that is definitely the exception to the rule these days...sort of like Hollywood releasing a good movie.)

I'm for banning all flights from Nigeria for 3 months. Perhaps that will help get the point across.

Of course banning children that are not old enough to speak fluent English as well as TSA personnel from entering an airport is the best overall solution. [evil]

| IP: Logged

Cathal Griffin
Film Handler

Posts: 18
From: Galway, Ireland
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 12-28-2009 02:35 PM

I've been holding back till now but regarding the banning of flights from Amsterdam and Nigeria. Perhaps you should just ban all flights to and from the US for a time? See how things turn out? Just a thought!

| IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 12-28-2009 02:47 PM

I have to agree with Claude here.

Just because the "suspected" terrorist is from Nigeria is in no way indicative of Nigeria's involvement in this man's actions and any idea that to hit a poor country economically doesn't really make any sense.

What WOULD make sense is to stop being so damn reactionary to these events, to just get the attempted terrorist act under control- as was done here - and get on with life.

Terrorists feed off pain, suffering and "maximum impact for minimum effort".... e.g loss of one (of their) lives for the loss of many (ours). They also feed off reports that their efforts are having an effect, so why are we running around like headless chooks implementing futile measures that the terrorists now know about, have prior warning and can now circumvent those measures.

Makes NO sense whatsoever. Telegraphing security measures is just stupid just as does reporting on "attempted" terrorist attacks.

Just saw Cathal's post. Well said. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-28-2009 03:12 PM

Well my comment was meant sarcastically. I should have used a [Big Grin]

I guess.

Seriously though, the only real answer to 99.9% the terrorist crap would be to racial-profile at the security checks, since 99.9%* of the problems thus far have come from one particular group of people. I'm not a rascist, but that is just a fact.

* NOTE: I haven't verified this percentage, but I think it's a fairly close guess.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-28-2009 03:51 PM

quote: Ian Parfrey
What WOULD make sense is to stop being so damn reactionary to these events, to just get the attempted terrorist act under control- as was done here - and get on with life.

Terrorists feed off pain, suffering and "maximum impact for minimum effort".... e.g loss of one (of their) lives for the loss of many (ours). They also feed off reports that their efforts are having an effect, so why are we running around like headless chooks implementing futile measures that the terrorists now know about, have prior warning and can now circumvent those measures.

All sarcasm and jokes aside, Ian really does have the solution.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 12-28-2009 04:22 PM

Some of the more "knee-jerk" restrictions have already been lifted. You are once again free to move about the cabin, at the captain's discretion of course.

| IP: Logged

Paul J. Neuhaus
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 126
From: Iraq.. Again!
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 12-28-2009 05:02 PM

quote:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
The no liquids rule from UK airports is annoying
Isn't that from all airports, not just UK airports?

Here in the US most airports follow what they call the 311 rule liquids must be 3 ounces or smaller in a 1 quart bag and 1 bag per person in carry on luggage.

I agree with the late George Carlin that we Americans are always happy to give up more of our freedom for the illusion of security.
This is all bullshit. Solution: Fire the motherfuckers that couldn't screen passangers correctly. Fire anyone who couldn't see obvious things on X-Ray machines.
And FIRE any asshole whose solution to terrorist activity it to make me stay in my seat for a ridiculous arbitrary time at the begining and end of my flight for no other reason then the illusion of security. I agree with the other posts why is the time at the begining and end of the flight any different then the rest of the flight??

Just my angry opinion! [scream]

[ 12-28-2009, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003

posted 12-28-2009 05:31 PM

quote: Paul J. Neuhaus
Here in the US most airports follow what they call the 311 rule liquids must be 3 ounces or smaller in a 1 quart bag and 1 bag per person in carry on luggage.

The European (and I think US as well) requirement is slightly more generous, giving 100ml within a 20cm x 20cm bag.

This is more than enough for most people to survive a few days (for males that can extend to a few weeks).

quote: Mike Blakesley
Seriously though, the only real answer to 99.9% the terrorist crap would be to racial-profile at the security checks, since 99.9%* of the problems thus far have come from one particular group of people. I'm not a rascist, but that is just a fact.

There are many groups who would not fit into the racial profile you suggest.

Although they tend not to target aeroplanes or US targets (they have targeted airports and theatres).

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-28-2009 06:07 PM

What kills me is that this threat was ANNOUNCED....it was flagged by the guy's very own father to TWO embassies, which did what with it? Then Abdule gets on a plane with EXPLOSIVES taped to his body and none of the technology we've already spent billions for that can sniff out explosive agents was ever even used on him. How is such a blunder even possible?

Well just ask the horses ass of a Secretary of Homeland Security who announces with a straight face on the Sunday news programs that "The system worked....people did what they were supposed to do." And she continues to proudly say that the PEOPLE on the plane stopped the guy (no sky marshal -- just some guy sitting next to him in isle 22a). She seems to think that because a passenger thwarted what could have been the downing of that plane, she's done her job. So evidently that's their game plane -- there will be some passenger who will avert disaster. THE SYSTEM WORKED. Oh yah, Madam Secretary? How the fuck do you come to THAT conclusion?!

Doesn't ANYONE in DC know how to have a SINGLE sentence leave their lying lips without putting a pathetically tranparent, bullshit spin on it? How bout this for an initial first step in this debacle....how bout firing her fat sorry sagging ass straight off, Mr. President....how bout THAT? Or is Obama going to do a GWBush vis-à-vis Brown after New Orleans and pat her on the back and say, "You're doing a great job, Janet."

All this crap about a new era and change and they are going to tell the truth. What a pile. It's nothing but business as usual, first order of business, cover their asses! Incompetence reigns supreme. I swear, if we don't wind up a second rate joke of a nation, it won't be for lack of trying.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 12-28-2009 06:25 PM

Frank, is it really fair to blame Janet Napolitano for the fact that someone with a bomb got through security as a foreign airport? No, she should not have said "the system worked", but this is hardly the same thing as the botched Katrina response by FEMA.

Until we completely seal our borders (meaning really tall walls and such) and stop allowing inbound ship and air travel, we will not be able to eliminate terrorist threats. Period.

I have never flown internationally, so I don't know if those chemical sniffing machines are standard. But as I said, in all the times I've flown since 9/11, I have only been through one of those machines once.

The simple fact is we exchange some risk for the freedom to travel. And we exchange some risk for the economic benefit of importing goods.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-29-2009 08:33 AM

Just to be accurate, her reference to the system working was referring to after the threat was discovered.

Steve said:

quote: Steve Guttag
This guy and about 550,000 others were on a suspect list. If you are on the list and you check in...you get the mark that ensures a "pat down" or even the funky x-ray machine...it is that simple. If you are on the list and shouldn't be, there should be a means to get off of it.

The 550,000 group contains lots of people who shouldn't be on it, and have done nothing to put them under closer scrutiny. It's not a suspect list, as they aren't suspected of doing anything. I could call TSA or some other agency and tell them a story to get you on the list. Such is always the problem with gov't lists.

The more specific list, the No Fly List, is smaller and is supposed to have more dangerous people, but has been well documented as being loaded with names of people with the same name or a name that sounds close to the real person.

There is no simple easy way to get off the list. Pretty much takes a lawsuit against the government, which is never, simple. easy or quick.

And Steve, you betray your age by referring to it as National Airport, or was that just a subtle way of getting in a forbidden political comment [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-29-2009 08:56 AM

550,000 is a pretty small sample of the population of the world...so if you are on the list, you get extra security...period! The no-fly list means just that....you will not be allowed to board ANY plane. Are the wrong people on the list...sure...but there needs to be a means to get off the list if they have the wrong person...that is just a matter of processing those people. Being on the suspect list doesn't keep you from flying...but it does slow you down just a little.

For the record...it is nothing political or anything about my age...it is National Airport, DCA...etc. You want to add a President's name to it? That is your choice...the stupid thing is that a President's name was already on it "Washington National Airport" and I never used that one either. Same with BWI...that is its name...wanna put a Judge's name in front...okay but it still is BWI.

For more local naming...it is still the Cabin John Bridge and the GW Parkway, Maryland side. What has it been called? Cabin John Parkway, Clara Barton Parkway...pick a freakin name and stick with it!

I've gotten over I-70S being called I-270...it took awhile but I'm okay with that. After all, it still has its confusion with the spurs at the end.

Steve

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.