Author Topic: Flight restrictions in UK and elsewhere (Read 2014 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** August 14, 2006, 02:17:42 PM »

well... this is a highly unusual event....

I agree with sandie.

If a sky marshal cant figure out who the bad guys are and when they are about to do something bad... we probly can't stop em by any means.

There are lots of ways to kill a whole bunch of folks. It is just the risk we take.

I don't want to be randomly searched.

lazs

Pooh21 · « **Reply #61 on:** August 14, 2006, 02:27:03 PM »

I will take the .00001% chance of being blown up over the atlantic as long as I can take my laptop and ipod on my person. So no luggage handler steals them, or hell some Homeland Security goon.

Suave · « **Reply #62 on:** August 14, 2006, 02:32:54 PM »

Who is lukster ? Nuke ?

lukster · « **Reply #63 on:** August 14, 2006, 02:51:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Are you saying that it would be ok? The internment camps, that is?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that muslims that may not be involved in terrorism will be killed or run out of this country if we are unsuccessful in derailing those who are currently blowing up civilians all around the world. I don't think that's ok either btw in case you were wondering.

Hide your head in sand if you will but that won't change a thing.

lukster · « **Reply #64 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:01:06 PM »

I'm guessing we won't hear any complaints from those complaining about being inconvenienced at the airport after the next terrorist attack about how our government should have protected us ?

Some claim they are willing to pay that price for freedom. Some of those making this claim also tout how much of a disaster this very similar situation is in Iraq. Makes it kinda hard for me to take them seriously.

Maverick · « **Reply #65 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:12:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, when i answered your question, you ignored it, will you ignore Sandman's answer if he gives you one?

Chair,

I answered your post and asked for additional clarification. You didn't respond to it. Either that or I missed your response. Like I said in my response to you, briefing the security folks isn't a strategy. What are the security folks going to do that is different than what they were / are doing?

If you brief them about liquids, how is that going to stop the liquids from getting on board? What are they going to do? Test all liquids? How long do you think it will take to get through security if they do? Is your solution the same as what is being done now, simply ban most liquids on carry on bags? If the prospective passenger refuses to allow security to look at a bottle in their carry on will your security then allow the passenger to board with the liquid? Will they require the passenger to submit to the search?

Sandman · « **Reply #66 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:14:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Who is lukster ? Nuke ?

AKIron.

Sandman · « **Reply #67 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:20:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Welp Sandy,

The question I asked Chairboy I now ask of you. What are you going to do about security at airports?

I'd go right back to the security of Sept. 10th 2001.

No one is going to hijack an airplane in this country. The passengers will feed them their own balls.

Maverick · « **Reply #68 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:31:05 PM »

Sandy,

How is that going to be of any use to the passengers of the planes the brit terrorists were going to hit? They didn't intend to hijack, just blow them up in the air.

lukster · « **Reply #69 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:35:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Sandy,

How is that going to be of any use to the passengers of the planes the brit terrorists were going to hit? They didn't intend to hijack, just blow them up in the air.

I think he's already said losses are acceptable if necessary to preseve freedom. I happen to agree but I find it hypocritical to express this view while bemoaning Iraq as a disaster.

Sandman · « **Reply #70 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:36:17 PM »

The only way to keep from losing aircraft is to keep them on the ground.

Freedom has its risks.

Sandman · « **Reply #71 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:36:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I think he's already said losses are acceptable if necessary to preseve freedom. I happen to agree but I find it hypocritical to express this view while bemoaning Iraq as a disaster.

Iraqis are not my concern.

Debonair · « **Reply #72 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:39:50 PM »

I was hijacked in a 172 once by a DE, on a checkride no less.
she was over 60 years old too, how embarassing

lukster · « **Reply #73 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:40:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Iraqis are not my concern.

Oil is and therefore Kuwait was.

Maverick · « **Reply #74 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:41:31 PM »

So in other words Sandy, a passenger should just roll the dice and see if they make it to their destination.

How many losses are acceptable in your opinion?