Profiling?

[C-bus Biker]

I don't want to debate Iraq particularly either, but it's far from true that 'everyone was confident he had WMD'. We're having a big enquiry into exactly that at the moment here in the UK, and a lot of people resigned because the justification for war simply wasn't there.



Didn't the Iraqi people just hang "Chemical Ali" last week for using WMD against the Kurds? So I guess they had such weapons and have shown a propensity for their use. I'm floored by the continued conversation around whether or not they existed when they were used quite openly on innocent men, women, and children.

 

[wrightme43]

Wow, well from one pm and reading this thread.

Just saw it and thought it was interesting. Its copy and pasted. Really has nothing to do with any sort of justification for war, or anything.

Just a simple deal that checking 90 year old grandmas, the pilots of planes in uniform with I.D., obvious normal American citizens, is dumb.

Its freaking moronic stupid.

P.C. bullcrap is going to get huge amounts of innocent people killed.

You call the cops when a creepy looking dude in a rain coat is standing outside a van offering kids candy.
We all profile. Its a built in human deal. Its meant to be there. If a group of people who are trying to kill a group of people you belong to have a obvious identifing charecteristic you look for it. To willfully and intentionally ignore it is stupid.

This is in no way a political deal. How in the world anyone can turn it political I dont understand. Its not a lib/con or dem/reb deal at all. Its a hey this is dumb and going to get a bunch of us killed deal.

 

[dako81]

I profile the chicks at the bar. Depending on the mood I'm in or how the day has been, I try to pick out the dumb ones, or I don't.

 

[wrightme43]

"You also said that these people are intent in killing you americans...em...you invaded their country and have killed more civilians then they ever did...so I don't agree you can look on it as a one sided argument. The americans are as bad as they are, only you do it for the greater good and they do it for their crazy ass ideas of what their god asks of them. Different people, different upbringing and absolutely different ideals. But at the end of the day, both sides are killing the innocent so I don't see any difference in terms of guilt on this one."

Seriously????????
Really????

Have you seen the Nick Berg video?
Have you seen the women these jihadi idiots throw acid on for going to school?
Have you read the Fawta they send out?
Are you aware of the no go zones in France?
Have you seen the videos of the 13 and 14 year old girls being stoned to death for being raped?

Morally equivalent huh? Just a different upbringing right? Oh its ok you were taught to rape women if they are out alone, and then to stone them to death for tempting you to rape them as a lesson to follow Allahs laws.

Have you read the Sharia laws? Do you think you will be happy and Dhimmi? Do you know what that is? There is a global religous war spreading right now. Have you watched what is happening in Iran right now? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vTM3MyzcsM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Rape in Iranian prisons - with English subtitle (Part 2)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYmhv8kSVvg]YouTube - Ms. Maryam Sabri Talks About Being Repeatedly Raped in Prison(Engl.Subt.)[/ame]

I pay attention to this stuff because 4 of my very very good friends are from Iran. I speak and listen to them speak very cannidly about what is happening. They know very well that this type of profilling will cause them PERSONALLY incovience but agree that it is needed and anything less is just dumb.

Here is one other just real obvious deal. If Ireland, or Austraila doesnt want to profile well thats fine, thats your deal. I live here, this is where they are being just stupid about it. So your opinions about what we should do here valid they may be you dont really get a say in what goes on here, just as I dont get a say in what goes on there. You get to deal with the consquences of your actions or inactions, just as I have to.


Really at a loss as to how you all got this onto G. Bush though.

Oh and here is a bit of info on Sirhan in his own words. Not so much Christian if you ask him. NSFW language Part II: Why Sirhan Sirhan Assassinated Robert Kennedy by Mel Ayton

 

[wrightme43]

Aren't all wars over religion?.....

Ummm how about no.

 

[lonesoldier84]

or get better intel on who is involved with terror groups and just ban them all from flying instead of having a piss poor relationship between intelligence and enforcement.

recently theres been reports of muslim terrorists dressing up as sikh men. so should they now have a separate line for sikhs and muslims even tho sikhs have nothing to do with muslim activities?

should i have to prove my personal history as a canadian born man who truly holds his identity as canadian above all else or say nothing and be treated as some sort of alien?? doesnt sound fair......

if there was a long string of terror attacks by a swedish/french/english groups and HUGE groups of white men and women that were born and raised in canada and the US were forced to wait longer periods of time than mexican/black/sikh/hindu/etc/etc people.......oh wow. That would go over sooooooo well.

 

[wrightme43]

The Sunnis and the Shia spend as much time blowing each other up as anyone else. There really aren't any useful parallels between the aims of a Palestinian terror group in the 70s, Colonel Gaddafi in the 80s, an Afghan farmer who feels he's being invaded and so joins the Taliban, and a revolutionary Shia movement in Iran that is deperately trying to cling on to power. All have completely different objectives. Address the root cause of those objectives and you can solve them; lump them together in 'them or us' mode and you'll lose.

It's interesting to note that it's only the Fundamentalists - Islamic and Christian alike - who seek to portray this as a war of religion.

Civilians in Infidel States Deserve to Die

Islamic law concerning the state of war between Islam and the West also requires Islamic scholars to deal with issues regarding the laws of war and the definition of "combatants" and "non-combatants." The innovation observed in Islamic religious rulings issued by radical Muslim scholars in recent years refers to a broadening of the definition of "combatants" who deserve death in jihad to all residents living in infidel states. The laws of war are considered to apply to all civilians and they are perceived in the same way as soldiers fighting on the battlefield. Such a position cancels the right of Jews and Christians to receive protection under Islam and from a religious perspective turns all Western civilians into "combatants." It relies on various religious arguments: Imitating the way of life and behavior of the Prophet Muhammad in his policy toward ahl al-dhimma, reacting on the basis of retaliation, and excluding Jews and Christians from the definition of monotheism and re-defining them as polytheists.
On June 28, 2002, 28 scholars from the Al-Azhar Institute in Egypt determined that killing large numbers of Israeli civilians in Palestinian suicide bombing attacks was the "noblest act of jihad." They justified killing Jews by arguing that Israel is a racist, military state that took Muslim land illegally by force. Muslims have, therefore, the right under Islamic law to rise up in jihad against the occupation in order to liberate their lands. The Al-Azhar scholars argued that in conducting jihad there is no need to make any distinction between soldiers and civilians. The correct distinction has to be made between peace-seekers (Muslims) and warmongers (Jews), and between the attackers (Jews) and the attacked (Muslims). Following this religious outlook, the Jews are robbers of Islamic land who contaminate the sacred sites of Islam and, therefore, they have been defined as "combatants, no matter what kind of clothes they wear."[SIZE=-2]10[/SIZE]
In April 2002, Sheikh Hamed al-Ali, a lecturer on Islamic culture in Kuwait and one of the leaders of the radical Salafi stream,[SIZE=-2]11[/SIZE] clarified in a religious ruling the circumstances in which it is permitted to kill civilians in the cause of jihad without violating the Prophet Muhammad's command prohibiting the murder of women and children. These include:

1. Participation in war - For civilians "who knowingly take part in combat or advise and encourage others to do so, etc., the prohibition against killing them does not apply and it is permitted to kill them in war....It should be noted that an army involved in modern warfare also includes soldiers who are non-combatants, some of whom serve in combat support roles and without whom conducting a war would not be possible. For example there are those who operate computers which manage military activities; military personnel involved in strategic planning; reserve forces who supervise mobilization of soldiers and prepare them for battle, if only on an administrative level; intelligence personnel, etc. All are included in the fate of those who encourage war against Muslims, and it is permitted to intentionally kill them in battle." According to al-Ali, all citizens of Israel are to be considered combatants because of Israel's compulsory military service law, which includes women, in addition to the fact that its general population is party to government policy due to the taxes it pays and its participation in elections.
2. Collateral damage to civilians during attacks on military targets - "When Muslims are forced to launch an all-out attack on enemies or bomb them from a distance and this may cause the death of women, children, and other civilians, it is imperative to ensure that they are not killed intentionally. However, if they are killed during such attacks, killing them does not constitute a sin."[SIZE=-2]12[/SIZE]

In a similar vein, Sheikh Suliman bin Nasser al-Ulwan, a Saudi scholar, issued a ruling on May 18, 2001, which defined the suicide attacks against the "exploitive Jews" in "Palestine" and against the "aggressive Christians" in Chechnya as "acts of self-sacrifice according to the way of Allah," and are therefore legitimate means of warfare from a religious perspective." He is cited in a December 2001, al-Qaeda videotape when a visiting Saudi tells Osama bin Laden that he is bringing "a beautiful fatwa" from al-Ulwan.
Sheikh al-Ulwan argued that it is not prohibited to kill children as a consequence of suicide actions if the perpetrator of such an action had no premeditative intent to kill them. Nevertheless, al-Ulwan includes "all the Jews in Palestine" in his definition of "combatants," adding that, "If jihad fighters are not able to kill combatants [only] without [also] killing children [who are with them], there is no problem in such cases if they [the children] are killed." In this context, al-Ulwan provides religious legitimacy for blowing up buildings "on the Jews' heads" indiscriminately and permitting the murder of Jewish women, who serve in the military and take part in the "aggression" by the very fact of being part of the "plundering" of Muslim lands, and because of their "moral corruption."[SIZE=-2]13[/SIZE] His impact has reached beyond the borders of Saudi Arabia. For example, al-Ulwan's writings have been found in schools belonging to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Thus, one of the major al-Qaeda spiritual leaders has been influencing the development of religious and political thinking of the Palestinians as well.
A more decisive approach to ordering the indiscriminate killing of Jews is presented by the learned Saudi cleric Muhammad Saleh al-Munajjid in a fatwa issued in April 2003: "The Jews distorted the religion of Allah...murdered the prophets and denied the existence of Allah; they are intriguers, frauds, and traitors...bringing corruption to Muslim communities...set fire to the Al-Aqsa Mosque...desecrated the Quran...committed massacres; so how is it possible for Muslims not to rejoice at murdering the infidel, thieving Jews? Moreover, Allah will satisfy his believers by destroying and exterminating them all. This is our right as Muslims as was promised by our Prophet....Allah will bring us to defeat and master them according to the Islamic tradition: Fight the Jews and defeat them until the rock says: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"[SIZE=-2]14[/SIZE]
All those involved in fighting Muslims, both Christians and Jews, are regarded as "combatants" in Muslim eyes. However, a particularly negative status is reserved for Jews, who are regarded as the source of all evil not only in the context of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict but due to their "inherent characteristics" and the "danger they embody to mankind." In a statement issued in December 2002 to "enlighten young Muslims," the Hamas movement describes Jews in wholly anti-Semitic terms in a way that divests them of any vestige of humanity. Jews are described as a nation of "despicable lowlifes," "traitors," and "liars" who are "arrogant," "corrupt," and "cursed," who include other gods in their beliefs and distort the Holy Scriptures." The Jews are accused of attempting to murder the prophet Muhammad, of seditiously creating the religious conflict that resulted in the split between the Shia and the Sunni, of the murder of Ali (founder of the Shia), and of supporting the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate. The document ends with an appeal to Muslim youth warning that "the Jews control the centers of power in the world," "spread lechery and abomination," "are behind all current and past wars," and are responsible for "almost all corruption and perversion that occurs in the Muslim world."[SIZE=-2]15[/SIZE]
A similar description of the characteristics of the Jewish nation can be found in a sermon given by the imam of the central mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudays, in May 2002, describing the Jews as "infidels," "calf-worshippers," "prophet-murderers," who even "tried to kill the prophet Muhammad," "distorters of prophecies," the "scum of humanity," "corrupt," 'treacherous," and "conniving." He prayed to God saying: "I wish the enemies of Islam and Muslims, the Jews, the pagans and other corrupted people, will be humiliated....Allah, exercise your power against the Jews. Allah, destroy them with sharpened tools and take them out of Al-Aqsa Mosque."[SIZE=-2]16[/SIZE]
One of al-Qaeda's leaders, identified by his nickname, Abu Ayman al-Hilali, in an article published in the periodical Al-Ansar, defined the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany, and Australia as "enemies," while praising the mass-murder attacks committed by al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S., Tunisia, Yemen, Bali, Moscow, and elsewhere. He justified killing Western civilians in these attacks for the following reasons:

1. The citizens in democratic Western countries become full participants in governmental decision-making by voting in elections and therefore they are no longer considered "non-combatants" as in past wars.
2. The citizens in Western countries are full participants in the war their governments are waging against Islam. Their designation by al-Qaeda as "targets" was a reaction to the aggressive policies of their governments. Al-Hilali asserted that even those in the West who oppose their governments' policies have no immunity from al-Qaeda's jihad since they are a small minority without real influence and cannot be distinguished during the commission of attacks.[SIZE=-2]17[/SIZE]

Um thats pretty clear. (oh and just so you know they mean you to)

 

[wrightme43]

or get better intel on who is involved with terror groups and just ban them all from flying instead of having a piss poor relationship between intelligence and enforcement.

recently theres been reports of muslim terrorists dressing up as sikh men. so should they now have a separate line for sikhs and muslims even tho sikhs have nothing to do with muslim activities?

should i have to prove my personal history as a canadian born man who truly holds his identity as canadian above all else or say nothing and be treated as some sort of alien?? doesnt sound fair......

if there was a long string of terror attacks by a swedish/french/english groups and HUGE groups of white men and women that were born and raised in canada and the US were forced to wait longer periods of time than mexican/black/sikh/hindu/etc/etc people.......oh wow. That would go over sooooooo well.

Thats why if I see someone in a Klan hat and robe I think they are scum that could use a good long prison term or worse. Or when I see dudes wearing gang colors I think the same thing. Get it? Its profiling maybe the guys burning crosses in white robes are great folks who just like to watch a fire, but most likely they are racist scum bent on destruction. Maybe the guys in gang colors are only collecting money for thier girl scout sisters but most likely they are racist scum bent on destruction. See how that works?

 

[lonesoldier84]

Thats why if I see someone in a Klan hat and robe I think they are scum that could use a good long prison term or worse. Or when I see dudes wearing gang colors I think the same thing. Get it? Its profiling maybe the guys burning crosses in white robes are great folks who just like to watch a fire, but most likely they are racist scum bent on destruction. Maybe the guys in gang colors are only collecting money for thier girl scout sisters but most likely they are racist scum bent on destruction. See how that works?

So say the people who committed the terror attacks were not klansmen. They were another group. Like the IRA and other similar groups throughout Europe who wanted self-soveriegnty or something. These groups had sat down with one another and decided to put their resources together and go on a several year long streak of occassional terror attacks together.

They wear traditional western clothes.

Now the profiling is of western white men and women aged 16 through 47. Will that be acceptable? I'm sure they and you would have no problem standing in a different line-up than the rest of us?

The "clothes" you are taking about as klan hats......gang colours.....wrightme.....are you SERIOUSLY comparing those to traditional clothes worn by eastern men and women?

I'm not even going to get into the fact that Sikhs and Muslims are not the same "towel-headed sand n*****" that believe in the same things. Let alone the fact that those are traditional casual clothes worn on a daily basis by sikh and muslim men that make them targets for this profiling you're seemingly advocating. (and vastly different forms of dress when you actually see the two of them)

If you are, that assessment by you seriously causes me to lose a lot of respect I had for you. I thought you were more intelligent than that. That's bordering on serious levels of ignorance there man.

If the hypothetical statement I made at the start of this post were to hold true, the equivalent argument would be that your loafers, khaki cargo pants, polo shirt with top button undone, and baseball cap are in every way shape and form the equivalent of "gang colours" and klan head gear and robes....

Again, that's bordering on serious levels of ignorance there man.

 

[lonesoldier84]

P.S. I am genuinely disgusted by this level of blatant ignorance advertised so freely on this forum. A turban worn by my father because he is a traditional man puts him in the same group as scum/rapists that wear gang colours???

The bad taste reading your statement over and over again is forcing me to re-evaluate my membership on this forum.

My family immigrated over 35 years ago and my mom worked herself to the F***** bone in factories doing manual labour here. We are solid members of this community and I consider myself a MUCH more passionate patriot than most Canadians who hold their sense of national identity as beer/hockey fans at best.

I'm not muslim, I am Sikh. To most ignorant people there is no difference between the two because both are towel-heads and brown. I consider my time too valuable to pass on any knowledge to the ignorant masses regarding the inaccuracy of that statement. Google it if you care to learn something.

Wrightme, you represent this forum as a senior staffer and long term senior member. If my interpretation of your words is correct, you have disgraced this forum.

I can only hope I've misinterpreted your words.

 

[stryken]

We need to take a deep breath... words don't really hurt that bad .

Don't really want to get all that deep into it but I must say that we are ALL guilty of profiling to some degree. There are certain places you don't take your family. There are Times when when you pull your children closer to you when passing certain shady looking people on the street. You can justify you actions any way you want it is a form of profiling and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with it in my book as long as you are not causing harm to the individual you are mentally judging. Tired of the innocent dying because someone is afraid of looking racist. If I were going to another country and that country was having a problem with short white guys coming over and killing off their countrymen I would completely understand if I had to step aside and get an extra pat-down. And I promise you most other countries wouldn't give a damn how I or my country feels about it. And I would be sure to get that treatment if I was wearing a Jesus Saves tee shirt and isn't that what they are doing with their religious clothing.

Religion = Problems ... I am not an atheist but this statement is an absolute!

 

[krid80]

If people feel they are being unjustly profiled, don't blame the reactionary measures, blame the source. If the US is checking more background on Middle Eastern men, who's to blame? I am far from racist and have no problem with middle easterners, but as was stated above, if I went to a country where big ogre frankenstein looking guys were terrorizing the countryside, it would only make sense that they take a second glance at me.

Dirk
6'3" 275lbs.

 

[lonesoldier84]

im not against people looking and investigating people through the usual intelligence systems.

im against lumping everyone from a certain sector of the population into the "bad apples" pile because of the actions of a few. profiling is fine as long as you do it PROPERLY. you cant just stop at the first level of profiling.

it goes:

humans > male > eastern> brown > muslim > aged 16-47 > single parent > low income > schooled in such and such province under religious schooling > criminal record

then I'm all for it. you have sucessfully profiled that person. that person has a huge liklihood of being trouble.

but to stop @ step 3........thats ludicrous. and it does affect me personally because sometimes people even stop profiling before theyve even hit the "muslim" level of profiling.

profiling is a science and involves stats and is accepted widely. people go to school for years to learn how to do it.

calling a blanket policy against a sector of the population "profiling" is an insult to the science.

 

[Jez]

Civilians in Infidel States Deserve to Die

Um thats pretty clear. (oh and just so you know they mean you to)

Yep - extremists, like I said. Fortunately they are not representative:

Al Azhar University Imam Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy has declared that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombers to be "heretics" who are deviating from the true path of Islam.

The problem with profiling is of course that it's a broad brush. The London Tube bombers weren't togged up in robes with exploding turbans - they were wearing ordinary casual clothes, carrying backpacks, like a million other young people in London. In fact some of them weren't even Middle Eastern - I think there was a Jamaican involved. And we have seen several cases now of people radicalised who did not come from the stereotypical Muslim community, including both Afro-Caribbean and white British. And we're going to see a lot more of it.

Of course the real problem here is something that C-Bus Biker pointed out back on page 1. When you have specific intelligence that someone has been radicalised, is on a terror watchlist, and has bought a one-way plane ticket in cash - and he still manages to slip through the net, then you have a major failure of co-ordination between agencies that no amount of general profiling will make up for. Exactly the same thing happened in the Tube bombings - one of the suspects was on the radar already, and was flagged up, but nobody pursued it. Then, tragically, it was too late.

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon for us in Ireland and the UK. The perpetrators weren't helpfully wearing distinctive clothes or obviously any different from the general population. It was specific, targeted intelligence that led to so many bombings being foiled, not an over-reliance on broad-brush profiling. The wider you extend the search, the more likely it is that genuine intelligence will be lost in the general background noise. We have towns in the UK where a quarter of the population are of Asian (as in Indian or Pakistani) origin. You can't profile them all, especially when you might well be looking for a Caucasian anyway.

 

[necrotimus]

The problem with security searches wouldn't be as big if they were truely random. The problem is they aren't random. The secuirty searches happen when the 'inspector' is done with the prior person. How easy is it to beat a system when all you have to do is wait until the designated 'inspector' is busy to pass through unsearched. If profilling isn't going to be used in the current model then the current model needs to be more random. In my opinon though current security models need to be trashed. Freedom and Security are more often than not opposites. If you want to be completely safe then you should be prepared to give up some of your freedoms.

If I was an airline company I would take more control of my own security and take measures out of TSAs hands. I would say this to my passengers: We at Zero Tolerance Air understand that in todays climate safety while flying is often foremost on your minds. This is why we have instituted a new policy that all our passengers must now fly wearing only our approved undergarments and orange jumpsuits that will be provided upon check-in in at the airport. Also there will be no carryon items allowed on our planes but you will be free to services we provide at no charge. In addition to these security measures we also have a private security guard on each plane armed with several non lethal devices. For those even more concerned we have flights that do not allow any luggage on board and bags must be shipped to their destination. Please stay tuned for a future announcement concerning our no movement flights where we put all the passengers to sleep before takeoff and are awakened only upon landing.

 

[krid80]

im not against people looking and investigating people through the usual intelligence systems.

im against lumping everyone from a certain sector of the population into the "bad apples" pile because of the actions of a few. profiling is fine as long as you do it PROPERLY. you cant just stop at the first level of profiling.

it goes:

humans > male > eastern> brown > muslim > aged 16-47 > single parent > low income > schooled in such and such province under religious schooling > criminal record

then I'm all for it. you have sucessfully profiled that person. that person has a huge liklihood of being trouble.

but to stop @ step 3........thats ludicrous. and it does affect me personally because sometimes people even stop profiling before theyve even hit the "muslim" level of profiling.

profiling is a science and involves stats and is accepted widely. people go to school for years to learn how to do it.

calling a blanket policy against a sector of the population "profiling" is an insult to the science.

I totally agree, but it must be understood that only 1,2,3,4 and 6 are visual and the others require interaction. Muslims don't have "Allah" tatooed on their foreheads nor their criminal record. I agree we can't stop at three but we have to start there.

 

[Tailgate]

Profiling exists everywhere, not just TSA lines. Advertisers and marketing people target certain groups. Our tax agency, the lovely IRS, profiles filers for audits. I remember last year I was targeted for a complete customs inspection in Denver because I probably fit a certain drug-trafficker profile (backpacker, single middle-aged male re-entering from Central America). Could've it been random? I have my doubts. Do I like it being considered a "suspect?" Is this "lumping" me in the same group with scum-sucking drug traffickers? Geez, I don't harbor such an extremist reaction. TSA agents don't have a complete bio on everybody. Let them try to do their job. Is present airport profiling an effective tool against airline terrorists? Until we know for sure I think it's irresponsible to compromise public safety lest somebody become "offended." lonesoldier asks how people would like it if their profile were mass targeted. Well, just about everybody already is subject to some inspection, some just get an elevated search. We all have to go through metal detectors, take off shoes, not carry too much liquids, etc. I agree with an earlier poster: Don't forget to thank the source (extremist Muslims, single-male drug trafficking bacpackers, etc) with one's frustrations in possibly having been pulled aside for additional inspection.

 

[k1c]

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon for us in Ireland and the UK. The perpetrators weren't helpfully wearing distinctive clothes or obviously any different from the general population. It was specific, targeted intelligence that led to so many bombings being foiled, not an over-reliance on broad-brush profiling. The wider you extend the search, the more likely it is that genuine intelligence will be lost in the general background noise. We have towns in the UK where a quarter of the population are of Asian (as in Indian or Pakistani) origin. You can't profile them all, especially when you might well be looking for a Caucasian anyway.

wrightme43, think about this one for a second.

How do you think the Pakistanis or Indians, or Mexicans, or Peruvians, or Spaniards, or Sri Lankans, or Russians, or Brits, or Irish, or (you should like this one, remember the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City?) AMERICANS, or, or, or.......go about disrupting home grown terrorist attacks in their respective countries?

 

[Wavex]

nvm.........

 

[knightrider]

This is why we have instituted a new policy that all our passengers must now fly wearing only our approved undergarments and orange jumpsuits that will be provided upon check-in in at the airport. Also there will be no carryon items allowed on our planes but you will be free to services we provide at no charge. In addition to these security measures we also have a private security guard on each plane armed with several non lethal devices. For those even more concerned we have flights that do not allow any luggage on board and bags must be shipped to their destination. Please stay tuned for a future announcement concerning our no movement flights where we put all the passengers to sleep before takeoff and are awakened only upon landing.

Unfortunately I see this being the direction air travel goes. Trust no one and give no one rights. My vision also includes people being locked in their seats and they need to be unlocked to use the bathroom.

I just keep watching air travel security news - and am glad I never need or want to fly.