U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2010, 04:20 PM
 
9,198 posts, read 9,278,507 times
Reputation: 28813

Advertisements

So answer me this, as I am a black man who has never run afoul of the law, do you think by mere virtue of my ethnicity, that I should be more subject to search than say, a white man dressed in a suit, who appears above board? Because that is essentially what you are saying. If your approach to the most effective security is to throw all the minorities to the wolves, then let's all pray you're never in a position to affect such policy............................................ .................................................. ..........I'd actually be more concerned about someone with a middleastern or "semitic appearance" than someone who is black. I think its reasonable when I fly alone to subject me to more security screening than when I fly with my two young children because a single man fits the profile of a terrorist bomber more closely than a parent with young children does.If these groups scream and cry that they are being singled-out and harrassed because they appear Middleastern than my rejoinder is again that 19 people who fit that appearance carried out the 9/11 bombings.Airline security isn't the equivalent of a college campus or a workplace. If certain ethnic groups are more likely (based on past experience) to be perpetrators of terrorist acts that calls for more scrutiny. This is not the equivalent as you put it of "being thrown to the wolves". Its a question of some groups having to spend more than average time passing through security and perhaps being subjected to individual questioning. Honestly, the notion that in order to avoid appearance of non-discrimination that everyone has to get exactly the same screening is inefficient, a poor use of resources, and probably more likely to lead to future terrorist acts than the policy I describe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2010, 04:45 PM
 
4,919 posts, read 19,865,760 times
Reputation: 6215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977 View Post
So answer me this, as I am a black man who has never run afoul of the law, do you think by mere virtue of my ethnicity, that I should be more subject to search than say, a white man dressed in a suit, who appears above board? Because that is essentially what you are saying. If your approach to the most effective security is to throw all the minorities to the wolves, then let's all pray you're never in a position to affect such policy.
None of this is about race or ethnicity, or nationality. Regardless of who was involved, it will always be about something that others possess that those calling for profiling doen't possess.

If a white, married, baptist, iron worker, male from Ohio blew up a plane heading from Chicago to LA, those same people would find an excuse to claim that because nobody from Florida was involved, it's utter nonsense to subject Floridians and Florida airports to the same security as chicago or for people from Ohio. Even if it was a person from Florida, theose same people would saybe calling for less security based on employment, or religion, or marital status. It's not about profiling, its all about others being the risk and not me!

This is not about security, it's about convenience. Nobody wants to have to follow what they see as rules that makes their life harder so they want rules only for those who fit the profile based on what has happen. But those same people complaining about the hassles would be the First ones screaming if security was relaxed for a certain group and that group turns out to be the next sucessful bomber.

What everyone forgets is the greatest danger to airline travel since 9-11, while in the air is not some terrorist, but a drunk white male. Read all the airborne threat incidents wher a real potential for major disaster occured, and the common denominator in all but those two terrorist attempts is "white" and "male". I say we forget screening for terrorist, give white males breath test before they can board a plane and prohibit them from having any drinks! That's the real threat to safe airline travel!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 5,562,334 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
What everyone forgets is the greatest danger to airline travel since 9-11, while in the air is not some terrorist, but a drunk white male.

Remind me again... what's teh body count for white male hijackers? I know the count for Islamic Jihadists are in the 1000's. Somehow being an obnoxious ass when you've had one too many drinks doesn't seem to compare.
Quote:
I say we forget screening for terrorist, give white males breath test before they can board a plane and prohibit them from having any drinks! That's the real threat to safe airline travel!
The only incidents I heard of that involved white males and SERIOUS saftey issues were when the pilots were drunk.

The whole idea of serving drinks on planes is because some cowards are afraid to fly. Those pathetic individuals can't get up the courage to get on a plane without getting wasted. I say we should leave them off the planes. Let cowards take the bus. The only time I had a drink on a plane was when I got bumped to first class from Japan to The Philippeans (first drink was free).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 06:11 PM
 
4,919 posts, read 19,865,760 times
Reputation: 6215
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post

The only incidents I heard of that involved white males and SERIOUS saftey issues were when the pilots were drunk.
isn't ignorance bliss?
You can get on a plane, peacefully unaware of the dangers your fellow law abiding passengers present all in the name of keeping those (enter whatever racial/ethnic saying makes you happy) off the plane. I know that just my mentioning that you face a greater danger in the air from a fellow passeneger who does not fit the profile is so unamerican i should be shot! I mean, how dear I even say that security is security and should apply to all in the interest of security and not that it should only apply to (enter whatever racial/ethnic saying makes you happy). I guess I'm just one of those who think that our homegrown radical AMERICAN elements have not tried to down an aircraft because they are subject to the same security as (enter whatever racial/ethnic saying makes you happy).

For me, I am more comfortable traveling ona plane with some arab looking person because i know that if he so much as farts, he will be beaten into a bloody pulp by everyone and stuffed into a braf bag. I know every eye is on every move he would make. I know that he couldn't move an inche without being watched by passenegrs, crew, and sky marshalls. That's the safest person on the plane. But, Roy with his cowboy hat, cowboy boots and Texas flag shirt, or Chad in his dockers and pullover carrdigan, or Duke with his hometown football shirt jersey and matching face paint, well to me they are the biggest threat because nobody is even thinking that those good old americans boys are a danger. They don't need a bomb, they just need a Jack Daniels. The next UA flt 223 may not be so lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Georgia
897 posts, read 1,458,209 times
Reputation: 611
If heightened security keeps My plane from being hijacked by Terrorists,I'm all for it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Earth
3,653 posts, read 3,881,013 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'd actually be more concerned about someone with a middleastern or "semitic appearance" than someone who is black. I think its reasonable when I fly alone to subject me to more security screening than when I fly with my two young children because a single man fits the profile of a terrorist bomber more closely than a parent with young children does.If these groups scream and cry that they are being singled-out and harrassed because they appear Middleastern than my rejoinder is again that 19 people who fit that appearance carried out the 9/11 bombings.Airline security isn't the equivalent of a college campus or a workplace. If certain ethnic groups are more likely (based on past experience) to be perpetrators of terrorist acts that calls for more scrutiny. This is not the equivalent as you put it of "being thrown to the wolves". Its a question of some groups having to spend more than average time passing through security and perhaps being subjected to individual questioning. Honestly, the notion that in order to avoid appearance of non-discrimination that everyone has to get exactly the same screening is inefficient, a poor use of resources, and probably more likely to lead to future terrorist acts than the policy I describe.
So not as concerned about a black man, eh? How fortunate for us, I guess. Anyways, the moment you turn your attentions to those you suspect 'most' likely to commit an act of terrorism based on ethnicity, is the day someone you would ordinarily deem 'safe' walks onto a plane with a bomb strapped to their legs. You condone all future travelers of middle-eastern ethnicity(even Americans with middle-eastern heritage who may 'look' the part) to being handpicked for further scrunity, while everyone else skips merrily along? Sorry, that's not happening.

Jesse James was white, right? How about we screen every white man who comes into the bank since he may be more likely to commit a robbery? We can apply your logic to other things as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 10:29 AM
 
9,198 posts, read 9,278,507 times
Reputation: 28813
So not as concerned about a black man, eh? How fortunate for us, I guess. Anyways, the moment you turn your attentions to those you suspect 'most' likely to commit an act of terrorism based on ethnicity, is the day someone you would ordinarily deem 'safe' walks onto a plane with a bomb strapped to their legs. You condone all future travelers of middle-eastern ethnicity(even Americans with middle-eastern heritage who may 'look' the part) to being handpicked for further scrunity, while everyone else skips merrily along? Sorry, that's not happening.
Jesse James was white, right? How about we screen every white man who comes into the bank since he may be more likely to commit a robbery? We can apply your logic to other things as well.............................................. .................................................. ........Well, unfortunately what you are saying is a major part of the problem. You're concerned about minorities being picked on or receiving extra scrutiny because they are minorities. The problem is damn few caucasian people have been involved in trying to bomb or crash airliners.You are from Britain. Remember a few years ago when some local Middleastern folks bombed some buses in London? No caucasians I know of were involved in that incident either.Airline security isn't about treating all people the same. Its not an affirmative action program. Its a program that attempts to use limited resources in the most effective way to prevent dangerous incidents aboard airliners. Single men are simply more likely to perpetrate an act of violence than women traveling with small children. Statistically, 19 out of 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Middleastern men.If Middleastern people are angry or upset about being singled-out for security maybe this will spur them to weed out elements like Al Quaeda in their own countries. Until that happens whether its fair or not giving such groups additional scrutiny when they board an airliner is more than justified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Eureka CA
8,255 posts, read 11,121,603 times
Reputation: 12572
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptrjakson View Post
though i am sure we all find the security checks at the airport are a bit of a nuisance, i think we all understand the reasons behind them.
Do you think its good thing to bother people in the name of security at air port.
yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Earth
3,653 posts, read 3,881,013 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Well, unfortunately what you are saying is a major part of the problem. You're concerned about minorities being picked on or receiving extra scrutiny because they are minorities. The problem is damn few caucasian people have been involved in trying to bomb or crash airliners.You are from Britain. Remember a few years ago when some local Middleastern folks bombed some buses in London? No caucasians I know of were involved in that incident either.Airline security isn't about treating all people the same. Its not an affirmative action program. Its a program that attempts to use limited resources in the most effective way to prevent dangerous incidents aboard airliners. Single men are simply more likely to perpetrate an act of violence than women traveling with small children. Statistically, 19 out of 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Middleastern men.If Middleastern people are angry or upset about being singled-out for security maybe this will spur them to weed out elements like Al Quaeda in their own countries. Until that happens whether its fair or not giving such groups additional scrutiny when they board an airliner is more than justified.
First, I'm not from Britain. I was studying there (irrelevent to the main topic, but just clearing that up). Moving on, you completely ignored my Jesse James point, which is to say, because an atrocious act was committed by an individual(s) of a certain ethnic background, does not justify persecuting an entire race of people going forward. Frankly, your attitude about this is very simplistic, with all due respect. A middle eastern group attacks an airplane, right so now every human being on earth who is of that race is a suspect? No, MY thinking isn't part of the problem at all. I would say your views, which I've tried to refrain from saying all this time but to hell with it, are racist and is part of a much larger problem. May as well call it as I see it. Timothy Mcveigh was white, was he not? I don't see you calling for increased scrutiny on white males because of his actions. Perhaps because you( I assume) share the same skin tone? Just a guess....Amazing we still have people in this world willing to condemn an entire race of people based on the actions of a few. How far we still have to go.....

Anyways, I can see this conversation with you is going to go in circles, and I'm not interested any longer in discussing the issue. I have my opinion, you have yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 5,562,334 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977 View Post
Moving on, you completely ignored my Jesse James point, which is to say, because an atrocious act was committed by an individual(s) of a certain ethnic background, does not justify persecuting an entire race of people going forward. Frankly, your attitude about this is very simplistic, with all due respect. A middle eastern group attacks an airplane, right so now every human being on earth who is of that race is a suspect?

....Amazing we still have people in this world willing to condemn an entire race of people based on the actions of a few. How far we still have to go.....
The post above I quote is just one of many who share this misconception. I don't mean to single it out but just use it as a typical example. You guys don't get it. It is not RACE or ethnicity that needs to be screened. It is adherence to an ideology. In this case the ideology of Islamic Supremacism. Of course you cannot screen for that visually since being a Muslim (one who follows Islam) is not a race. Remember, most Muslims are not even Arabs. SE Asia, including Indonesia are the largest concentration of Muslims today.
To screen for an ideology you have to ask questions, you have to profile, you have to check group affiliations. Of these things, only the question asking can really be done at the security line at the airport. The other checks have to be done ahead of time and result in the people in question being put on the no-fly list. If they arenít flagged ahead of time then question-asking by trained interrogators at the airport if the last chance to stop them before they get on the plane.
Those that attacked us on 9/11 did so because they were acting on an ideology. It is quite legitimate to scrupulously investigate and question others who profess to follow the same ideology. To do otherwise would be to endanger people in the name of political correctness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top