Who are they kidding?
 

It may make you want to scream when a TSA officer makes an old lady roll up her pant leg, but it really is a necessary step in the screening process, says the TSA’s White. “We know there’s no single face or body type of a terrorist.

I know what terror looks like. Try the 9/11 guys. This isnt brain surgery people.

I fully agree.

This whole process is simply idiotic. They say the TSA is not allowed to PROFILE people, and I say, if there was a bank robbery in your neighborhood, and the bank staff say the robber was an oriental woman, what does the police do? They conduct their search among oriental women, no?

Problem is, most of those TSA workers are low paid, with low morale, bored people just doing their job...

This is not good, cost lots of money, causes lots of pain, makes air travel even more unpleasant, and mostly --- TOTALY INEFFICIENT.

Cheers to you dandj ((Y))

The TSA says “We know there’s no single face or body type of a terrorist."

BFS there ain't!

Oh, but what about Tim McVeigh? Fine. You fly with the Middle Eastern men, I'll fly with the former military.

Oh, but what about Lee Malvo? Fine. You fly with the Middle Eastern men, I'll fly with the African Americans.

The TSA and the U.S. Government is more interested in political correctness than real security.

On June 2, 2006 17 people were prevented from attacking the Canadian Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), as well as other targets such as the CN Tower and the Toronto Stock Exchange. Police allege that three tons of ammonium nitrate was to be used for the creation of massive bombs.

They quickly pointed out that the 17 were from a "broad strata" of the population. Huh? They were all Middle Eastern men! That "broad stata" must have been the varying length of their beards.

Somewhere in Hell, 19 people are laughing.

I agree with the TSA - profiling is wrong. And it isn't just morally wrong, it is also bad policy. I mean, why even bring Timothy McVeigh up if you are going to dismiss it? And how would profiling have helped stop Richard Reid, who is not Middle Eastern? To ignore what these data points make plain, that terrorists DO come in all stripes, is beyond asinine.

And while we are at it, since I assume that the folks who posted before me are conflating Middle Eastern with Muslim (and Muslim with terrorist), I ask a simple question:

Which country has the largest Muslim population?

A quick hint: it isn't in the Middle East.

Oh, and the term "oriental" is neither precise nor polite.

Well, I sure must fit their pin-headed opinion of what's a terrorist. I'm REALLY tired of being harrassed every single time I fly. And Cubfan knows how dangerous looking I am.

What brought this rant on?

dandj, next time you feel like making a really ignorant comment at 6:45 PM, eat some dinner to bring your blood sugar back up and see if you still feel depressed and angry with the world.

I admire Travelgourmet for answering you intelligently, because I am just losing the patience to deal with this kind of nonsense.

I'm not politically correct; I'm not even a liberal, but I do have some experience with the world.

Not a thing wrong with being liberal and politically correct, but world experience is good, too.

Why do people get so excited about trying to force TSA to act according to their own personal idea of who is dangerous? If your idea of who is dangerous is limited to your own stereotypes of evil-doers, are you ever going to be surprised someday, very unpleasantly!

Note: "unusual" female suicide bombing yesterday.....

And even assuming it's only Muslims -- Middle Eastern or Asian or whatever -- who are ALL a threat is both inefficient and stupidly unfair to non-militants, AND it overlooks a lot of other categories of people with bizarrely murderous ideas in their head.

Not saying TSA has it right. Am saying that getting your shorts in a knot over what you think you see in an airport is just wasted energy. Save your sputtering for the voting booth.

To quote Bill Maher...

"Not every muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a muslim."

"Oh, and the term "oriental" is neither precise nor polite." --- heh, Political-Correctness at its best...

So, let me rephrase it to, instead of an Oriental woman, let's say a tall, bald man has been seen robbing the bank. What would the police do if not searching for a tall, bald man?

How many Tim McVeighs have we known to be attempting to blow up commercial airliners in the past 10 years? When was the last time a Christian (or a Jew or a Hindu) hijacked a plane in the name of God?

I agree that every air passenger has the right to be treated equally. But at the same time, I see no value whatsoever in asking my 75 years old gramma from O'Neil Nebraska to go thru the security hassle before getting on a plane to visit her grandson in Madison WI.

"Not every muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a muslim."

Until it's not. Remember the IRA?

If you have friends from China, you'd certainly better know that they will NOT be comfortable if you refer to them as "Oriental." It is NOT polite and NOT correct, from their point of view.

Or would you rather insist on being smartarse politically incorrect just for the sake of cherishing your preferred stereotypes -- and in the process be proudly impolite and offensive?

Mamamia: It isn't political correctness, it is about being precise. Oriental has traditionally referred to the Middle East, not East Asia. Indeed, in a place like Egypt they use the term Oriental liberally to mean something completely different than what you are using it for. I will assume you have not read Edward Said and do not even begin to comprehend his usage (though I think he is way off base).

The point is that it is a term used by people who are both insensitive to the "political correctness" of it, and ignorant of the various meanings, which make its usage problematic as a descriptive term. The problem with using the term is not that it pegs you as politically incorrect, but that it pegs you as BOTH politically incorrect AND ignorant of the varied meanings of the word.

I don't think this forum is the right place to express your bigotry & intolerance of anyone who doesn't look like you. As far as PC goes it's not being liberal but saying & doing the right thing. I got blasted here for posting that I used the term "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" on my Korean Air flight last year. If being respectful of other cultures makes me a politically correct liberal then I'll glady wear that label.

The subject here was (and I hope still IS) the way TSA is doing its job in our airports.

Or am I wrong?

With all due respect, me using the horrible/offensive word "Oriental" was just an EXAMPLE of a certain LOOK of a person and how he/she would be described by the average person...

Just as the bank teller could have told the police that the person who was robbing her was "a short black guy" or "a large blond woman" or "a limping guy with a Latino accent"...

Now, if anyone here wants to blame that bank teller of being a racist, please feel free. I'm sure the policeman taking her description of the robber -- won't blame her of that.

Mamamia...what does an ORIENTAL person look like?

Taitai

No Mamamia, the issue is that "Oriental" doesn't mean what you think it means. It can refer to Arabic or Turkic or Persian or East Asian or South Asian peoples. It is not specific to any identifying characteristics, so your usage of it as a defining characteristic is inappropriate. It does not accurately describe anybody. And it is not polite.

As to topic at hand... Several people here, including myself have offered ample evidence that racial profiling can not be expected to provide reasonable protection against terrorism. You have chosen to ignore those posts and make this about your right to use an inaccurate and imprecise term. If you would care to address the fact that scores of recent terrorists do not meet the criteria of being of "Middle Eastern look" and what the implications are for the probability of any individual of "non-Middle Eastern look" of committing a terrorist act, then please do so. I am eagerly awaiting your informed response.

Why pick on my definition of Oriental, I don't know.... Why is it of ANY significance, I don't know. How do you know what's Oriental to me, I don't know.

So please let's get back to the issue, shall we.

The IRA has never been been accused of plotting to blow up commercial airliners. Timothy McVeigh has never been accused of such an act. This board is about airline/airport security, right? No other members of other religions were ever involved in any terror acts against civil aviation. That is a FACT.

Now, I wouldn't tell the TSA to look ONLY for young Muslims men. No, there have been young women involved in Islamic terrorism, and there have been young JAPANESE men, sent by an Arab terror organization to commit an attack on a civilian airport.

So no, I wouldn't rule out non-Muslims involved in air-travel terrorism. And my profiling would include a bit WIDER range of youngsters than just young Muslims....

...Still, that old lady from Wisconsin, traveling with her grandson.... If any of you think she is a suspect and deserves the treatment of a potential suicide bomber, than please tell us so.

Mamamia, the grave flaw in your argument concerning looking for a bank robber is that in the situation you described, the crime has already been committed, and a description of the perpetrator, in any wise, is valid as a way to describe that specific person.

In the TSA situation, the potential crime has not been committed and only a simpleton would presume to be able to identify the potential terrorists by racial characteristics, age, or gender.

As to the elderly woman, I would pose a situation where she was politically active, or badly needs money for her heirs. I don't think it is impossible that an elderly person, knowing that their natural end is near, would carry on a bomb if she had been generously compensated. Certainly the terrorists who, if the media are correct, make probes of our security, found that the elderly were never searched, would find an elderly person to do their evil work.

Cleveland,

It's all a matter of PROBABILITY. This is not scientific, this is all based on past experience -- and there is MUCH exprience....

Commercial airliners have been hijacked (and bombed) since the early 1970s, and ALL were carried out by young Muslims. So, yes, based on over 30 years of "business" the organizations dealing with airline security, all over the world, DO HAVE a typical profile of the typical air-travel terrorist.

Yes, anything can happen, change, and be a first... It took 9/11 for the security pros to realize one can hijack a plane and destroy it not with an explosive but with a $2 box cutter... But the PROBABILITY is not an elderly woman bound to commit suicide...

HERE IS AN IDEA: Last month I was catching a flight at EWR. At the entrance to the security check-up area each one of us travelers was greated by a young black woman who was asking each passenger a few simple questions, WHILE LOOKING US STRAIGHT INTO OUR EYES. I thought she was doing a terrific job, this was a pro who used her head and senses by personally "testing" people's reaction. This is lacking at the typical TSA environment, and that's a huge drawback.

Mamamia writes: "Commercial airliners have been hijacked (and bombed) since the early 1970s, and ALL were carried out by young Muslims."

Except those hijacked to Cuba and elsewhere.

You are either very young or have a short memory.

How about the Croatian nationalists who bombed LaGuardia in 1975, killing 11 and wounding almost 80? What about their compatriots who hijacked a TWA plane to Paris in the same period?

I am not dumping on Croatians -- I love Croatia -- just attempting to show that people who considered themselves good Roman Catholics were as capable of killing innocent people as your Muslims, just as some Protestant fundamentalists who consider themselved good Christians have bombed clinics and other facilities and some weird cultists have fought it out with the FBI.

It isn't race, it isn't religion that makes terrorists; it is a sense of grievance coupled with the belief that no redress is possible in the existing system -- essentially the same motivation that makes a kid take an AK-47 to a mall or his high school and start blasting away.

<b>No other members of other religions were ever involved in any terror acts against civil aviation. That is a FACT.</b> Huh???

Samuel Byck - American Jew, attempted to hijack a plane in 1974 and crash it into the White House to kill President Nixon.

AirChina pilot threaten to crash the plane if the crew tried to prevent him from flying to Taiwan in 1998.

D.B. Cooper, hijackled a plane in 1971.

In late 60s and throught 70s, US-Cuba and Cuba-US hijackings were almost a monthly events. Americans hijacking planes to Cuba and Cubans hijacking planes to US.

Here is a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...aft_hijackings

oh, and I forgot about this little inciden in 2002:

<i>The 2002 Tampa plane crash was an incident that occurred on Saturday, January 5, 2002. The incident occurred when high-school student of Eastlake High in Tarpon Springs,FL Charles J. Bishop, inspired by the September 11 attacks, stole a Cessna 172 and crashed it into the side of the Bank of America Tower in downtown Tampa, Florida. The impact killed the teenager and damaged an office room. There were no other injuries.</i>

Thanks, Ackislander for the correction. So let's change &quot;all&quot; to MOST (I'd dare to say 95% of air-travel terrorism has been Islamic).

You sure must agree that throughout the past decade or so -- and especially since 9/11 -- terror threats against civil aviation is Islamic. We don't go thru the hassle of security checks, here in the USA and in airports all over the world --- not because of Cubans or Croatians, but because of Al Qaeda and their bed fellows.

And as to &quot;sense of grievance coupled with the belief that no redress is possible in the existing system&quot; ---- this is BS, of course...

A. Are Muslims the ONLY people suffering &quot;grievance&quot; in our world?

B. The drive behind Islamic terrorism is purely IDEOLOGICAL, and it is simple: SPREAD ISLAM ALL OVER THE WORLD. This is a Crusade to force Western civilization, the &quot;Infidels&quot; -- and moderate Muslims too -- to submit to Islam, THEIR kind of Islam.

This has NOTHING to do with grievance, none of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 was a desperate, grieving person, as we now all know.

<b>We don't go thru the hassle of security checks, here in the USA and in airports all over the world --- not because of Cubans or Croatians, but because of Al Qaeda and their bed fellows.</b>,

Once again you are misinformed. Introduction of metal detectors in all US airports were the result of US-Cuba hijackings. Nothing to do with Islamic radicals.

Hey, AA, let's not play silly here.... You, as a frequent flyer should know better.... Unless you've never flew a commercial airliner before 9/11?

silly? don't think so...

<i>Aircraft hijacking incidents between the United States and Cuba reached their peak in 1969. These incidents have variously been attributed to terrorism, extortion, flight for political asylum, and transportation between the two countries as a result of the ongoing antagonistic Cuba-United States relations. Subsequent measures by both governments contributed to a gradual reduction of reported incidents towards the mid 1970s. Governmental measures included an amendment to Cuban law which made hijacking a crime in 1970, <b>the introduction of metal detectors in US airports in 1973</b>, and a joint agreement between the US and Cuba signed in Sweden to return or prosecute hijackers.</i>

AAFF, aren't you one of the most vocal critics of TSA here usually? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

I'm, but for a reason.

I don't have a problem with physical security and if TSA concentraded on that alone, I believe we would be much safer.

Unfortunately, TSA decided that intrusion into our personal lives, cutailing freedoms of their own citizens, bypassing our constitution, etc. under the disguise of &quot;protecting us from evil forces&quot; is the way to go. 90% of commercial cargo goes unchecked with much of it placed in the bellys of the big birds, but your average John Q Public can't fly because he's on the No Fly List because his credit rating may not be satisfactory, or he paid in cash or???

OTOH, OBL and many leaders of many terrorists groups are not on any No Fly List because we don't want them to know that we are looking for them???

AA, you really play a game here, as if NONE of us here really knows why we have to show up for a domestic flight TWO hours before, and THREE hours before an international one, as if we all have no clue as to why we're asked to take off our shoes, belts, empty our pockets, take out our laptops, have our bags searched.... We're all clueless -- but YOU'RE THE ONE WHO KNOWS, it's because of those Cuban hijackers....


As if 9/11 changed NOTHING in what people are going thru when they need to board on a flight...

&quot;cutailing freedoms of their own citizens, bypassing our constitution, etc...&quot; ...As CubFan was saying &quot;Somewhere in Hell, 19 people are laughing.&quot; and I would add &quot;much closer than heaven, they're choking with laughter in Teheran too.&quot;

Or maybe the problem is, it's been too long since we las suffered a devastating terror attack... A few more thousands of innocent Americans need to die for some &quot;good hearts&quot; to wake up and realize the ugly reality....

I presented you with facts but you insist on continuing your misguided tirade.

You go ahead and believe what you want.

I feel sorry for folks that can't accept facts, but I guess we're all different.

Let's review:

You - <i>No other members of other religions were ever involved in any terror acts against civil aviation. That is a FACT.</i>

Me and another Fodorite - presented facts that counter your statement.

You - <i>Security started after 9/11</i>

Me - Not true, snd once again I posted links and info that counters your believes.

That is a fact!

Have a nice weekend...:-)

AA, you must be a real pro in propaganda.

You have an agenda and you won't let any facts, glaring facts, make even the slightest dent in your warped agenda.

...As if 9/11 has made NO CHANGE in the way airport security is conducted, as if 9/11 has NOTHING to do with what we're going thru today when we need to board a commercial flight....

As if the reason we need to go thru the hassle of airport security today -- is because one, Samuel Byck, who attempted to hijack a plane in 1974...

Maybe you're one of those who think 9/11 was not an Islamist job? Or is Bin Laden a Cuban citizen, hiding in Havana?

Wait, some of yours still claim 9/11 was all a CIA/Bush production, all an excuse so that the government can intrude into our lives, ahhh, now I finally know the truth.

For heaven's sake, Mamamia, ease up. Your agenda couldn't scream more if you'd written it in bold red. You want to believe &quot;Islamists&quot; pose the sole threat in your idea of the world, and little things like facts don't seem to do anything but give you hives.

For now, a quote from The Little Prince:
<i>I have serious reason to believe that the planet from which the little prince came is the asteroid known as B-612. This asteroid has only once been seen through the telescope. That was by a Turkish astronomer, in 1909. On making his discovery, the astronomer had presented it to the International Astronomical Congress, in a great demonstration. But he was in Turkish costume, and so nobody would believe what he said. Grown-ups are like that...

Fortunately, however, for the reputation of Asteroid B-612, a Turkish dictator made a law that his subjects, under pain of death, should change to European costume. So in 1920 the astronomer gave his demonstration all over again, dressed with impressive style and elegance. And this time everybody accepted his report.</i>

Now say good night.

No reason to let something as insignificant as a fact or two get in the way of a perfectly good tirade.

Not to make you more hysterical, Mamamia, but some of those TSA screeners are Muslims, but you certainly knew that, since you know what a Muslim looks like.

This is not complicated, nor is it philosophical, Just honestly answer these 2 simple questions:

A. Wasn't 9/11 an Islamic job, pertpetrated by radical Muslims sent by Al Qaeda?

B. Didn't 9/11 dramaticaly change the way airport security is conducted?

Obviously you don't think that when you board a flight (any flight) in New York, or Paris, London, Tokyo, or Bangkok, required to show up hours before, asked to take off your shoes and belt, and go thru the familiar hassle of airport security these days ---- you don't do it because of one Samuel Byck, who attempted to hijack a plane in 1974, or Cuban exiles, or Croatian nationalists....

Yes, actually, things did change drastically during the Cuban hijacking era -- you are apparently too young to know that. I remember being &quot;wanded&quot; in 1973 in Rome's airport after something went off in the metal detector. Five years earlier, no such checking.

Just because the Powers That Be got motivated by the &quot;embarrassment&quot; of 9/11 doesn't mean there weren't a number of other kinds of threats out there.

No one's trying to argue that certain Islamic extremists dedicated to terrorism aren't a threat. What we are trying, unsuccessfully, to get through to you is that generalizing to all Muslims and not paying attention to anyone else is folly, illogical, and doomed to problems.

To put it another way: Random checking with no obvious pattern of choosing whom to check is a much better way to keep &quot;evil-doers&quot; off-balance than being completely predictable about who will get checked. Profiling -- to start all over again -- doesn't work.

,,,,, Profiling -- to start all over again -- doesn't work.....

O.. but it does -- when done properly. The Israelis have proven that for decades. Going through security in an Israeli airport is vastly different. Our TSA security is more concerned with causing discomfort so that you think that they are doing a good job. But they keep flunking the tests.

(Forgive me, but Israelis can be a lot more certain who their enemies are, no? We are &quot;equal opportunity&quot; targets.)

Profiling only works when it works... i.e., you catch someone and VOILA, hey, they fit a profile and whaddya know, it must work! But as a single method, crudely applied (and yes, that would apply to TSA, I'd guess), nope.

The Israeli example is an excellent one and we (as many other countries) have learned a lot from their experience... I Flew El-Al 2 years ago, Toronto Tel Aviv, and was impressed with my &quot;interrogation&quot; by the Israeli security guy, and even more impressive, the way they conduct their security business in TLV international. But it's true, TLV international is a small airport, compared to ORD or JFK....

&quot;generalizing to all Muslims and not paying attention to anyone else is folly&quot; ---- But I never made such a claim, actually. I never said ALL Muslims are suspect, I actually mentioned the problem moderate Muslim societies have with the radicals, who regard them as &quot;Infidels&quot; as well...

What I was, and am saying, is that to make security process more efficient and easy on passenger, you NEED to profile, BUT include in the list a much broader group of potential &quot;trouble makers&quot; (I was the one who mentioned young Japanese men who were &quot;hired&quot; by Muslims to carry out the massacre in TLV airport in 1972)....

... That old Wisconsin grandma traveling with her grandson -- they were behind me last time I flew from ORD, and they gave the old lady quite a hard time -- should NOT be in that group!...

Mamamia: To put it plainly, I hate old people. And I hate people from Wisconsin. I think they should be checked rigorously. For you to claim the same thing about &quot;middle-eastern people&quot; requires you to do the same.