When Will We Just Stop Flying?

I have already stopped flying. I won't take my wife and daughter with me if, for some reason, I have to.

^^^

It's for this reason lots of people won't fly on airlines any more.

I (and my family) can fly for free...

...but we drive EVERYWHERE on the N. American continent ... we'd drive to Hawaii if it were possible. 2 or 3 "trips" each year in excess of 1000 miles each way... I'd rather drive than go through the process of flying.

How do they know you're not a terrorist? Because you're not dark skinned, or Muslim?

Here's a link to the FBI's terrorism statistics (in the US) from 1980 to 2005:

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...05/terror02_05

Searching through the above list, terrorist incidents by middle easterners/Muslims are few and far between, compared to other groups and demographics.

The threat of "middle eastern radicalization" and Islamic terrorism is exaggerated. Even the corporate weasel-media, which has itself been a principle vehicle for terrorizing Americans via sensationalist fear mongering, especially in the last 10 years, included this article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06...ization.study/

Even the Rand Organization acknowledge that we have been sold a bill of goods re. radical Islam and terrorism in the US. The number of people killed by "Jihadists" in the US since 9/11 is a big round Zero.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_...RAND_OP292.pdf

Similarly in Europe.. a supposed hotbed of fundamentalist Islam and terrorism by such, studies indicate that terrorism by that demographic is a tiny minority or the total. 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe from 2007 to date were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam.

http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.a...ions&language=

There is a 100 times greater chance of being struck by lightning than succumbing to a terrorist's bomb or bullet... and in that unlikely scenario, the terrorist in question is more likely to be white and non-Muslim.

Americans have been indoctrinated for decades to distrust, or hate Muslims. And this broad climate of opinion has been used opportunistically, especially by the prior and current administrations, to continue a very long holy war, or in Bush's unguarded words, a 'crusade', niot just in the Middle East, but also here at home.

I am no fan of Obama (I didn't vote for him the 2008 election either)... but what is the real reason why so many people reckon that Obama is a Muslim? Because in this country, many people view Islam as "the enemy", especially since the demise of the "commies" as a convenient whipping boy... and equating Obama's faith with Islam is seen as, and used in an accusatory fashion.

Then there is the absurd broad opinion that terrorists are more attracted to airports than anywhere else... the highest security locations in the country....

All terrorists are middle eastern muslims with beards and brown skin. This is not racial profiling, but pure hatred and racism, based on a series of big fat lies and decades of media bullshit.

SDW, how much more evidence do you need to convince you that you too, have been sold a big fat lie? Perhaps your comfort zone won't allow a realistic take on this?

Nevertheless, what they're doing to the traveling public at airport screening checkpoints has NO EFFECT whatsoever on security. It is all for show... and too many people have fallen for it and think it's "good"... or at least "necessary", neither of which is true.

Face it. You're going to continue to hear 'this shit' until you get a clue. The majority of terrorists are not Muslim or dark-skinned. Get your head out of your racist assumptions.

Only if you paint the word "terrorism" with a really wide brush.

SDW appears incapable of a response which doesn't reek of infantilism, again.

Yes, this shit is going to be going on and on until the US public finally get a damn clue.

The links I quoted were especially for SDW... the most middle-brow, ersatz, safe, generic sources I could find... like CNN, Rand, and the goddamned FB fucking I. This material on those sites is not made up by me, just for the sake of baiting a few people in some obscure corner of the web. Really!

SDW, when I reply to your posts, even though I do my best to accommodate your lack of tolerance of any sources/stories/facts than don't quite map onto your distorted, white bread, insular view of the world, nothing really seems to work.

"What luck for rulers that men do not think"....

.... which is not politically correct these days.

All terrorists are Muslim. By media and government decree. And that's that.

Terrorism is non-military violence or threat of violence intended to incite a political response. That's the definition. You're not using any brushes to define it except an accurate one.

A Basque separatist blows up a police car. Terrorism. An IRA member blows up a building. Terrorism. A white supremacist blows up a mosque. Terrorism. A "Christian" (haha) kills a doctor who performs abortions. Terrorism.

There's no brush. Just facts. And as Sammi Jo pointed out, there has not been a singe act of terrorism on American soil carried out by a Muslim since 9/11.

I think this is absurd to put a child through this type of bullshit for what? this is completely wrong and should be stopped right away.This smuck of a president we have should look into this asap and not cave in all the time as he always does.

Those who deliberately want to kill people fall into by far the Muslim catagory and then the extreme Christian right wing catagory. Both are extremely dangerous and both are tiny minorities of the population.

So all serial killers, mobsters, gang members, hit men, and fanatic military personnel are Muslim or radical Christians?

Doh, I didn't give a long winded response!

Hands here's what you're dealing with in a general sense in any of the threads :



The short versions to summarize :

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-rfa102710.php

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/2...-center-brain/

or : http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110407...iticsusbritain


A more detailed version for those of you who want more :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46105/Its-All-in-the-Brain

The conservatives here won't like this and will either try to discredit ( because it's potentially uncomfortable information ) or the info will kill the thread or they will try to ignore it altogether. But there it is in black and white. Not a conclusion but a big indicator.
I know I won't win any conservative friends for this and will probably be ignored but the info's real and it's out there.

This is a generalization only.You have to be really narrow minded to think like that.

Or have a lack of grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and a larger amygdala.

Besides I believe Hands said :
I guess he missed that part.

I fail to see how this in any way refutes my point.

I know I'm wasting my time but on the one hand a person says " Tiny minorities " and on the other you jump to " All ".

Those are really different measurments of the segments of the population. Buit I'm guessing you'll never see what's wrong with your conclusion.

As marvfox said this was a generalization. Or one could say jumping to an extreme conclusion about what the other person was saying.

If I can drive I will drive. It is much more enjoyable for my family. We drove to Orlando before and will again this year. If you want to fly by all means fly but beware of what price you pay to do so.

Fellows

Isnt this just what happens if you dont oppose the reduction of liberty when it starts to happen.

Bring it on they cried, were all scared of the bogeyman. Now look what you've got.

Now this is downright brilliant:

TSA security looks at people who complain about ... TSA security:


Riiight.

No. Someone who plans to blowup, hijack or use a plane as a missile isn't going to be complaining at all. In fact, they are going to be calm, polite and courteous. In fact they are even likely to do something like thank the TSA agent for their "service" or even joke with them about all those "whiners." Knowing full well that these TSA (Too Stupid for Arby's) agents are completely unaware their being played and "social engineered" into relaxation.

Then they will blow up the plane.

Those are the smart ones.

As for the dumb ones (and if you're dumber than an overweight, polyester stretching, overpaid pseudo-cop, government flunky...then you deserve what you get): it seems that the level of "security" we already have is excessive overkill akin to using a sledge hammer to open a beer can.

What kind of person types the above private message to a total stranger? Does not this kind of response indicate that he has zero argument, re. the sources I posted?

SDW2001 is not only incapable of distinguishing between the message and the messenger, but also is so uncomfortable with anything that renders his beloved establishment icons in less than a poor light, that meltdowns are his first reaction.

He's trying to intimidate you. I disagree on 9/11 with you, but your posts are some of the most factual and interesting here, his aren't.

The reason for these searchings is not to actually get terrorists before they board the plane, it is on the one hand to deter terrorists from trying to go onto planes in the first place and on the other hand it is done to comfort the population that something is being done to improve security.

Mostly it's the comfort-pill in order to make people think that travelling by plane is secure, basically to make sure the airline-industry continues to flourish.

The deterrment of actual terrorists is a bonus but probably only limited to those simple unorganised terrorists, the organised ones that are really determined would find a way around the security-measures.

Trust me you're not the only one who's seen this stuff. It's his usual MO.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, since I have made no claims about 9/11 regarding the identity of the guilty parties… (check all my posts on that subject in the archives here). So ... I am mystified as to what you disagree with me about on 9/11. Yes I have asked a bunch of questions for sure... but are you implying that to ask questions about that subject is now illegitimate? And if so, what and who might be in danger from too much inquiry?

*

Here's another question addressing one of the numerous aspects of 9/11 which Philip Zelikow (9/11 Commission neocon head honcho) summarily excised from the Committee's agenda: (recall "no stones left unturned")….

Shortly before 9/11 ( June 1, 2001), the protocols and procedures for addressing rogue planes were scrapped, rendering commanders in the field stripped of all power to act in such emergencies, the authority being deferred to to the Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld) to issue the necessary scramble orders. Admiral Fry form the Joint Chiefs signed this order (J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A)

There are an average of some 70+ incidents a year, and prior to 9/11, the protocol had worked perfectly. On 9/11, as we all know, the new protocol failed completely... 3 of the 4 airplanes slammed into their chosen targets, with zero challenge, for an hour and a quarter after it was known ( that a major attack was in progress. On September 12, 2001, the original protocols were restored.

Had the original protocols been in place that morning, the attack would have FAILED. USAF scramble pilots are normally super efficient at dealing with incidents like this, within minutes of notification. Why scrap a proven set of procedures which worked for years (decades), briefly replace it with a protocol that failed completely, and then quietly reinstate the original system? Nobody's asked, or answered this.

No conspiracy theory here, SDW. Just a question, regarding something untoward that happened, as evidenced by an official J-3 document.

This is completely narrow minded when you say this!

Perhaps I should have included: [sarcasm][sarcasm/]. Read the context.. thats largely the view that the US people have been conditioned to accept, and be comfortable with.

I was going to post this, but I could not actually determine if he was speaking about your actual sarcasm being reality, or if it was the "true reality" you were trying to portray as ridiculous with your sarcasm that he was upset about. ( Not taking a side, just have not determined how likely which option it is that he is actually upset about. )

I for one do not know if I agree with your total point regarding only {muslims/brown skinned people} being terrorists, but I do see a tendency for people to more quickly believe it than some others.

Too bad it's not possible to just do away with religion altogether. Ten thousand years down the road, people will look back on us and Christianity and Muslim will be grouped together with the greek gods (and all others) with a, "oh how quaint... they believed in gods."

For all the progress we ARE making in this era, the belief in gods by entirely too many of us is keeping us in the "provincial" category. If you disagree, well... I'm sorry the truth is so painful for you.

Ahhh...the cocky, self-assured dogma that of the anti-religious.

For well-meaning people with well-developed scientific reasoning ability as well as a true moral sense of right and wrong, religion is abolutely useless. Unfortunately, not all people fall into this category.

well meaning = intentions. You judge people not by their actions, but by their intentions. That is insane. Science has to be governed precisely because good intentions can lead to unethical outcomes

I wonder where a true moral sense of right and wrong comes from.

WRONG.

Science is nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge. There is no good/bad from science.

Science wants to know how atoms are held together. The application of that science is up to the end user... whether that enormous binding energy is used to make a power plant or a bomb is not "science".

Asking the questions and finding the answer was good for society ... how society chose to use that knowledge is another story.

There are ethical and unethical ways to pursue knowledge. Pursue is an action. An object can be amoral but actions have moral consequences.

Yes and attempting to answer this requires action. That action must be moral.


You are talking merely about the conclusions. The actions to get to those conclusions are still subject to morality.


Application and acquiring are not the same.