DO WE NEED STRICTER SCREENING TO PREVENT TERRORISM?

The terroist are wrong in killing people...but, has anyone thought about why they are attacking America?

Domenic

Just me wrote:

The terroist are wrong in killing people...but, has anyone thought about why they are attacking America?

Domenic

Who cares? Take away their putative reasons and they'll make up others. Sort of like people who claim so-and-so is why they left a message board. lol

Check this out...

Type this into your space bar:

Who took down the twin towers, and building 7?

Domenic

LC wrote:

Sort of like people who claim so-and-so is why they left a message board. lol

Who would claim such a thing? You mean people need excuses? Boy you sure do learn something new every day.

Type this in the space bar:

Video Did a rocket hit the Pentogon? Where is the plane?

Domenic

alice wrote:

Abe F. March wrote:

We don't need tighter security. We need to address the cause, and until that is resolved, no security will screen out those seeking revenge.

What is the cause?

"They Plotted Revenge Against America" covers that.

About screening: What's the problem? Have you ever had an x-ray? Security personnel have the right to do a body search and that is worse than a screening. In reality, security would be speeded up. No taking off of shoes, belts, cleaning out pockets, etc.

The alternative will be when some airline promotes a nude flight as the safest way to fly. I'll bet they will be overbooked.

Our privacy has already been invaded with electronic devices. For all those who endorse technology, they should not object to screening. I think screening will happen whether one objects or not. The only way to avoid it is not to take public transportation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100102/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

So a suicide bomber just killed 75 people at a volleyball game in Pakistan.

I suppose there was no screening because until you can get to the root of why suicide bombers hate Pakistanis, it doesn't matter?

I've been reading and rereading all the posts on this thread, and I cannot find one post that says we should not have screening. Some of us have been saying that screening will not always catch the perpetrators, so we should also be looking into the causes, but no one has said we should eliminate it.

We cannot expect the screening measures to completely protect us. As long as there are people in the world who are desperate enough to kill themselves, we will be at risk. It doesn't matter how much we up the security measures, the desperate ones will find a means.

We seem to be back to that either/or thing again.

Ann

alj wrote:

I've been reading and rereading all the posts on this thread, and I cannot find one post that says we should not have screening. Some of us have been saying that screening will not always catch the perpetrators, so we should also be looking into the causes, but no one has said we should eliminate it.

The way those comments followed the original question, it seemed to imply that nothing would work until the root cause was solved. Which will never happen because there's no root cause besides craziness and a religion that encourages and attracts crazies. No one said screening was 100% effective, either. Until the airlines make everyone ride nude, lol. But not even then -something will be hidden in the luggage.

LC wrote:

alj wrote:

I've been reading and rereading all the posts on this thread, and I cannot find one post that says we should not have screening. Some of us have been saying that screening will not always catch the perpetrators, so we should also be looking into the causes, but no one has said we should eliminate it.

The way those comments followed the original question, it seemed to imply that nothing would work until the root cause was solved. Which will never happen because there's no root cause besides craziness and a religion that encourages and attracts crazies. No one said screening was 100% effective, either. Until the airlines make everyone ride nude, lol. But not even then -something will be hidden in the luggage.

So, what is the argument about?

Ann

I returned home on New Year's Day after a month in Florida. When I left Manchester here in the UK, I went through four - yes, you read correctly - four separate screenings before I even reached the departure gate, let alone boarded the plane.

When I arrived at Tampa to fly to Atlanta for the return international flight, I went through a normal screening procedure, ie my hand luggage x-rayed and a walk through the machine which checks for metal objects.

There were people in line with litre bottles of water and three and four pieces of hand luggage. None were stopped by the TSA or whoever is responsible for screening passengers in America, despite all the TV coverage to the contrary.

When I arrived in Atlanta, I changed terminals and expected to go through the screening process again. How wrong I was! There was absolutely nothing apart from a quick look at my passport and boarding pass. Despite all the media hype that we would not be allowed blankets, would have to remain in our seats for the last hour of the flight, only one piece of carry on luggage and that the screen showing the exact whereabouts of the plane during the flight would be turned off, none of that occured.

Security screening in the USA is a joke.

Jenny,
you're right. Security screening is not consistent, however the toughest screening are international flights into the USA. We learned that wasn't consistent either when they allowed the Nigerian on board the flight from Amsterdam.

Hi Jenny,

Good to see you. Happy New Year! I hope your holiday set you up for writing your next novel!

Hi Shelagh,

Thanks for the welcome back. I've pages of notes to help me finish the book I started last year... now I need the time!