lol… talk about semantics… please compare and contrast screening and profiling?
again… dami wants 100% coverage… you can’t be selective on who you scrutinize and get that 100%…
Please let me be clear here. All this started with the comment that everything would be solved with profiling, specifically certain groups. One member has repeatedly said the only sufficient security is 100% security. How can you have 100% security if you’re not treating everyone the same way???
Take those extra question marks and xxxxx xx(self censored). You can never have 100% security so take that off the table. My point on screening and profiling (“FOR HIGHER LEVELS OF SCRUTANY”) would be for example. If you are a non-US citizen, Muslim, Saudi Arabian(or any middle easterner for that matter) you would get the highest level of security, pulled aside, bomb dogs, x-rays, empty contents of bags, strip search, cavity search. Whatever it takes to insure you will not be a threat.
Offended by this? Sorry, but too bad. How many of the 19 were not male muslims from Saudi Arabia. How many were US born citizens?
My sentiments to a “T”.
Deef, my boy… I AGREE WITH YOU, YOU XXXX!!! Our mutual friend dami here said he wanted 100% security. I was making the effin point that you can never, ever have 100% security and he was saying you could with profiling!!! Good grief, don’t you take the time to read the thread history???
You just said 100% wasn’t possible and dami agrees with you!
dami, make up your mind, already!
I think you are referring to my statement below:
I look for air traffic controllers to be only 95% accurate - that’s good enough, isn’t it? Same thing for doctors. Why should they be 100% accurate when 95% is good enough. When I’m driving through the desert and am 100 miles from the nearest town, I want my car to be only 95% accurate. And, of course, I want the bank to be only 95% accurate because that’s good enough.
In other words, 95% is NOT good enough for true security. Anything less than 100% brings doubts to the traveling public. It also allows for those peaceful religion zealots a chance to bring their terrorism to us once more.
I did NOT say that 100% security was possible. Please re-read what I emphasized above the continue reading below.
Finished reading?
Okay. Good.
I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough on what I said.
I didn’t say 100% security would be possible, although it sounds like that. What I should have said, and I apologize for leaving out the key word, security *screening * should be 100% correct. Based on my experience, it’s not. As I mentioned at the start of this forum, my girlfriend had hand creme confiscated from her yet she had two additional “contraband” items in her luggage (candles and another bottle of hand creme). I also have not had any request to remove my quart size bottle of legal liquids from my baggage and ran through the x-ray machine by itself.
Again, I apologize for the key word being omitted.
Bottom line, TSA = Inconsistency.
Try reading what you wrote and see if it makes sense to you.
“In the hurly-burly and the infinite variety of travel, you can end up with nonsensical results in which the T.S.A. person says, ‘Well, I’m just following the rules,’ but if you have an enemy who is going to study your technology and your process, and if you have something they can figure out a way to get around, and they’re always figuring, then you have designed in a vulnerability.” - Kip Hawley
Just to keep the pot stir just right 
cnn.com/2009/US/01/07/jet.bl … index.html
The last part of the article that says something to the effect of “The airlines and TSA have more lattitude in a post 9/11 world” Really?? Then I am shocked as hell no one went balistic the other day when I was at the grocery store by the guy wearing a “I Support Single Mom’s” Tee with a chick on a stripper pole…now that to me is a damn funny tee…but it is a JOKE!!! Lighten up Francis. Freedom of speech is a great thing, it is what has fueled some good debates within these forums.
It all started with the TSA yet they are getting off scott free. The TSA should have been included in the lawsuit. The shirt wasn’t the best thing to wear, as the guy admits, but that’s still no reason to tell him to change it. More stupid TSA tricks.
Edit: Clarification. TSA may not have gotten off scott free but there was no discipline given to the TSA idiots whose actions led to this lawsuit.
If dami had it his way, the guy would have been profiled and had his forehead stamped with something like “Shirt is TSA approved.”
Too bad this settled in the favor of the passenger. I personally agree with the decision to cover the shirt and to err in on the side of caution… Hell, the authorities gave him a free shirt probably at tax payer expenses.
I don’t know Arabic from squat.
How does the non Arabic speaking people such as TSA know the message didn’t convey an entirely different message then the English “translation” to other Arabic people nearby (article doesn’t say this, but a possibility?)
The message “We Will Not be Silent.” sure had sinister overtones especially after a report “two days after the United Kingdom revealed a plot to bomb planes to the United States had been foiled”
This would in my eyes be a perfect example where profiling should apply. I can’t imagine that a Causcasian American would be wearing such a shirt.
The verbage in Arabic just may have a whole different meaning and also lost when it’s translated in the English language.
"When I asked why, one of the TSA officers said, 'Coming into an airport while wearing a T-shirt with Arabic letters on it was equivalent to going into a bank while wearing a shirt saying, ‘I am a robber,’ " Jarrar said.
That’s just WRONG!
Agree as he didn’t know and that analogy really doesn’t make sense…
I just wouldn’t want to instill trust in the translation to the person wearing the shirt. That’s what bothers me the most. He could be the enemy.
Lets get real here, these are terrorists… they’re busy, they got virgins to meet up with. Only wannabe, faux terrorists would do signs on a t-shirt. If airport security gets too tight they’ll just fly the sucker from a foreign country into a building/airport/cruise ship or get the perfect job, a baggage handler (or similar). Full access, at some airports, not much security… you can throw 45 pounds of RDX in the cargo hold. One person can put bombs in multiple aircraft a day. Why take so much risk just to kill 300 when you can kill 3000? Skip the country before the bombs go off…
?
Ummm, don’t be so sure…
Terrorist have been known to communcate via pictures. How?
Not by what you see on the screen, but messages within the binary code.
Something said on one language can get lost in translation.
Yeh, I know they do the secret messages, but I doubt they use it much during the missions… who’s got the time/tools to read binary code? Without looking weird…
Yes, he COULD be the enemy - true. But EVERYBODY has the right to free speech. Even suspected terrorists.
If you wanna search his luggage, make him take off his shoes, pass the wand over him a few times and do a full body cavity search because he’s wearing an Arabic T-shirt, go ahead - make sure he’s clean. I say go for it! But you can’t deny him his right to free speech!
In English, absolutely agree. But we don’t know what he is saying in Arabic.
For all we know he could be saying in Arabic “Set the bomb off” or fire in a crowded movie theator and in English, I love NY strewn across his chest on his T shirt.
TSA would most likely not know this, thus me agreeing cover up that shirt.
Surely you wouldn’t trust the translation to a potential enemy?