Originally Posted by Deegs14

If I remember correctly, one of the more recent terrorist attacks (I believe in Russia?) involved women implanting bombs under their breasts through surgery (or just putting bombs in their body anywhere through surgery) and they would blow them selves up like that.
With these new scanners, apparently they cannot see through your body at all (just as the picture in the article suggests), so if a terrorist wanted to blow something up, all they could do is put a bomb in their body and walk through the scanners as if nothing was wrong.

That's the biggest flaw with them. And for some reason, the TSA is too stupid to recognize that. Someone can easily stick anything that can fit up their ass/between their ass cheeks (technique used for years in the drug industry), deny the full body scan, and then get a pat-down. The pat-down procedure is so flawed that someone can easily get through without the item being detected.

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

Probability of incident occurring ≠ Ramifications of incident

very true but that has no relevance in my above post.

If 10 thiusand die a year from drunk driving (since it is a common occurrence involving small amounts of people) lets say and only one plane worth of people a year (which is a lot of people in very rare occasions). than 10000>>~350. Which is the bigger problem?

I mean the security at airports is already tight. You are not always going to be able to prevent a terrorist attack from happening. Go on you tube there are horrible footage of people as far as I'm concern is violating something . Like a 5 year old boy getting a random strip search. I mean WTF.

Originally Posted by thedog123123

very true but that has no relevance in my above post.

If 10 thiusand die a year from drunk driving (since it is a common occurrence involving small amounts of people) lets say and only one plane worth of people a year (which is a lot of people in very rare occasions). than 10000>>~350. Which is the bigger problem?

You're still not looking at the bigger picture.

Firstly, assuming it's a terrorist attack and not a hijacking, they'll aim for a monument of importance, one of high importance and whose loss will be engraved into our minds. More likely than not, the people that will die won't only be those that were on the aircraft.
September 11th for reference: nearly 3000 people died. This still is probably less than the number who die in car accidents, so read on.

You must also consider the function of the monument being targeted. Say, for example, the attack on the Pentagon was fully successful, I need not explain how that would have affected the world, let alone the US.

Then, there is the impact on the economy. Terrorist attacks, successful or not, have huge impacts on the economy. In fact, the economy drops when there are rumours of Russia testing nuclear weapons...that's how sensitive it is.
September 11th for reference: global stock markets dropped drastically; approximately $40 billion in insurance losses. Whether you like it or not, car accidents keep the economy in balance. There is a win-win (though definitely not equal) to both insurances and customers alike.

Finally, there is the lingering aftermath of a terrorist attack. In the case of September 11th, even now—ten years later—people still have a fear of flying due to it. They still hold the annual memorial in honour of those who died in the incident. To the world, the face of Islam has drastically changed (mostly in part due to media's stereotyping and greed for viewers) because of the event. People's faces grow solemn upon the mention of 9/11.

Now you may say that I'm only referring to September 11th, and that there were many other failed terrorist attacks that occurred since then. That the odds of another 9/11 occurring is fairly slim. Well refer to the above paragraph again. The impacts of 9/11 are very much still present today. And secondly, all this security enforcement in airports aren't to prevent a failed hijacking. They're there to prevent another 9/11 from happening.

They call it "War On Terror" instead of "...on Terrorrism" for a reason.

Originally Posted by justinsftw

They call it "War On Terror" instead of "...on Terrorrism" for a reason.

I think that's just because it rolls off the tongue nicer and thus makes for better cable news headlines.

So searching a little child, is part of a "fight against terrorism" ?

And by the way, only stupidity allows you to believe in a thing like War on Terror. War is the ultimate form of terror/terrorism.

And why can't we check TSA personnel or whoever does the full body search ?

If they can search a child, I have the same right to search them. And I have also the same right to shoot them for pedophilia.

I still don't know what to think of the whole system. But all my experiences have not been positive. While travelling this year (it was to Egypt), so it was an entire plane of so-called "suspects" I guess? And what I mean by that is that a lot of women wore the hijab/scarf. And while standing in line it was pretty interesting to see how easily children and some men passed through the search thing, while the search for the women was so much more thorough. As a matter of fact, it's always been like that. My dad, siblings and I get through, no problem, while my mom is left to the side. If this system will be enforced equally for everyone, I have no problem with it as long as EVERYONE goes through it. If that's really gonna help stop so-called terrorism, I'm all for it, even if it is a violation of privacy.

Honestly, if you are trying to stop the terrorists at the airport, you've already failed.

Not directly related to terrorism/the TSA, but relevant nonetheless

See? There's nothing to worry about.

There's a greater chance of you dying from falling down than dying in a plane crash. (let's all stop walking now!).

People are so afraid of so called terrorist. They're Lame. Al Qaeda can't even hurt you. Take your clothes off and let Al Qaeda shoot you and they'lll miss every single shot.

I see the reason for the new security measures but they are not being applied well, the selection of people who get searched is obviously not random.
When my aunt, her friends and I went to the US, my aunt and I got searched, because she was wearing a scarf to cover her hair, whereas her friends who were carrying large amounts of medication without a permanent were not. Trust me being patted down sucks, you may be being patted down by a girl but a Guy is still watching looking you up and down and it is disturbing and having a near naked photo of you being looked at is just as disturbing when you have it done.
for this measurements to be done fairly everyone should be subjected not just those who the security officer feels is a threat from their subjective opinions.