well I will say it, the TERRORISTS have won

[nadinbrzezinski]

but you say, how?

Gone on a flight recently?

Read now many more freedoms people are willing to give up for a semse of false security?

The goal of terrorism is to change the nature of the target society. Well, they have won.

Me, I will only fly if I have no choice, but they have won... fully.

[Lost-in-FL]

1. Screw that.

I'll continue to fly any chance I get. I am serious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Read around here

and how many more rights people are willing to give up.

Me, I will only fly when absolutely necessary... mostly due to the bullshit.

[Lost-in-FL]

4. I know.

Security lines will be longer that's for sure. And yes, I know what you mean. People are regressing to the 9/12 mentality and will get worse comes Summer 2012 'till November.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. i fear this is now the permament status of the country

and people who are afraid are damn easy to control as well.

But to a point that is a different discussion. But if the goal is to frighten and change a society... well they have won.

[Lost-in-FL]

11. +1, nt

[anigbrowl]

3. Yawn...welcome to the real world

Most people still fly, and in most countries flying has always involved fairly strict security. The Us simply didn't experience any terrorism at home for such a long period that people like the OP started to assume it couldn't possibly happen here.

[Hannah Bell]

36. no, no worse in most places than here.

[Terra Alta]

6. I, too, will only fly when absolutely neccessary.

If that means the terrorists "win" then so be it. I am not giving up any more freedoms than I have to. If I have to take a cross-country trip I would rather drive and enjoy the scenery anyway. At least then I won't have to strip down and have airport security search me.

[Romulox]

7. I forfeit to the terrorists. Our society isn't really worth fighting for...

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

8. agreed. they kicked our fearful little asses. and they just keep doing it. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. And sadly people don't seem to realize

that they are letting distant risks to change how they live.

Compare that to the Troubles... there were bombings often in London, and people kept living every day, without giving away their rights. Oh and the IRA struck more often. and more lethally too.

[seabeyond]

13. better to kill them over there.... nsa spying, torture... we have done it in a lot of different

ways last handful of years.

some of the things will be outrages, outrages i tell you for the very same people on du. but this is no different than those others. just pushes their buttons so they cowar.

we had hijackings years ago and we didnt think of or consider for a minute implementing these actions. it was an highly unlikely risk we bore.... graciously and with the anxiety. now we cowar, we cave, we become so much less.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. It is also how differently things were managed

you were not told to be afraid by your government.

Now... does not matter who is in the WH, we are. And like little abused children, mostly we do.

[vadawg]

16. i hate to tell you this but it is different, hijackings in the past meant a trip to somewhere sunny

nowadays if the plane is taken over it means a fiery death, problem is what number of deaths do you find an acceptable number, i think the people would go nuts if you were willing to let one plane a year go down and chalk that up as an acceptable risk..

[seabeyond]

33. you really dont hate to tell me this, now do you. and no, not sunny place, a little longer vacation

all is grand and happy party time.

people were killed.

we had the plane go down over scotland. lots died. adn we did not have this behavior and people would not have been willing to have this behavior. wasnt even a thought, that this was the answer.

[vadawg]

43. well as i answered your specific point about hijackings, you do realise that in the old days

the rules were you comply with the demands and fly the plane where told, nowadays its a different ball game, as i said how many aircraft are you willing to lose in order not to inconvenience yourself. Personally i dont fly much any more, i dont like it but im pretty much more concerned with arriving in one piece than if some idiot looks through my shit or scans my body.

[seabeyond]

49. mmmm. the chemical bomb in underpants would have made it thru. illusion of safety. nt

[notesdev]

47. Why not?

We do it with cars, so clearly there is a level of acceptable risk.

Life is full of risk and it's time we as a society started dealing with that fact of life maturely. Chasing the elimination of risk is not only foolhardy, it is against nature.

[vadawg]

15. yeah right, nothing was different in the UK due to the bombings

people didnt look out for stuff... your living in a dream world if you think that people who live with the risk of death whether from terrorists or natural disasters dont change the way they live. If you think that laws were not changed due to the PIRA then you really know nothing of the troubles.

[paulsby]

32. not to mention the UK has amongst the most extensive surveillance societies in the free world

they also less freedoms in regards to search and seizure than we do, no right to remain silent (it can be used against you, less freedom of speech (hate speech laws, race relations act, etc.), etc.

UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies have a lot of latitude

[vadawg]

44. yup especially when it comes to counter terror operations, and the people are happy with it that way

due to the fact that having been bombed etc for quite a while you understand that lives are more important than someone who never leaves their house feeling their rights being imfringed...

[Lost-in-FL]

23. I think things could be better but there seems to be

an inclination to do the bare minimum in order to make profit or gain political power out of the situation.

So you have Al-qaeda on one hand trying to create havoc and then those willing to make money by creating a false sense of security or pushing for more troops into Afghanistan/Pakistan (and now more money going to Yemen... so much it makes my head spin). So yes politicians will thrive from the artificial state of terrorist hysteria you are talking about.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Go on a flight, try international, on the way in to the US

whether they are imaginary or not, the nightmare is all too real.

And that is what I mean about they have won. The nature of the US has been irrevocably changed.

And welcome to DU.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. I've generally found security when flying to the US from abroad to be *less* stringent...

...than domestic travel. For instance, I generally don't have to take off my shoes or my belt or answer a bunch of retarded questions about "Did a terrorist pack your bags for you?" when travelling from the UK or Italy to the US.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. That is because the shoes are a mommy device

I know that at least when flying from Mexico City there are no preferred shippers and all that goes into the belly is ahem screened.

Explanation of a mommy device, something that gives the impression of doing something when in reality it does not much.

Some of the explosives will go through the X-Rays, thank you...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. You're not making a damn bit of sense. n/t

[Lost-in-FL]

26. I thought UK was pretty rigorous (Heathrow), a tad more than the US.

Now Brussels was another story. They were just happy like you said, asking those retarded questions and were quite satisfied even if you lied to their faces. France was extremely deorganized (Charles de Gaulle) so we were checked and rechecked several times not because of security but because they would constantly change gates and we had to be rechecked each time.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. Heathrow used to do a second check at the gate for US-bound flights.

Pat-downs, hand search of carry-on luggage, etc. Haven't seen that in at least two or three years, though.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. I went on a flight yesterday.

Two, actually. The only thing that's changed in ten years is that now I have to take off my shoes. I don't even mind that so much because it gives you a funny insight into the sort of socks people wear. If that qualifies as the terrorists "winning" then they weren't aiming very high to begin with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. You then few domestic

I flew international

Not only were people screened twice... once at primary and then before boarding (full pat down which ironically would NOT have caught the Christmas bomb either, and not because of the screeners either)

But one hour before landing nobody could get off their seats, and all electronics had to be ahem off, and off your lap...

And we had it easy from what I understand.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Where were you flying from?

None of the people I know who came back through LHR over the holidays experienced that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Mexico City

And that was required by DHS

[vadawg]

21. lol ive always went with the rule that if im alive then the terrorists are not winning

though seriously even if AQ nuked NY there would still be people who wouldnt get that there are people who are trying to kill you...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[waiting for hope]

28. I wonder how long it will be before

the new rule is "Commando Only" in regards to underpants?

[Frank Booth]

29. Oh No!1!!1

Airport security's going to see I'm fat!!! My clothes used to cover up my obesity, so I'm pretty sure no one could tell I'm fat.

But now they're going to look under my clothes and see my size 48 waist!!!

:scared: :scared:

[vadawg]

30. im more worried they will see my size 48 something else ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. If they want to see my 14 waist the more power to them

now that 48 waist... rolls are good enough... not even the scanner will be enough.

There are days I wish I didn't know what I know about this particular subject.

:-)

[LostInAnomie]

34. Inconvenient airport security means the terrorists have won?

:rofl: :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. No the mass surrender of rights

if you missed that, I guess that is my fault.

[bridgit]

37. If you'll pardon the pun: Americans have been too flighty for too long as it is...

It shouldn't have taken "terrorists" to sober America up

[CJCRANE]

38. The neocons have won.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Having read quite a bit on "the terrorists" they are the other side

of the same coin.

After all, we are talking of two groups who hate the modern world and freedom

But I am afraid I am getting into too much of a philosophical discussion.

[bridgit]

42. That's true, they did play a part. Irving Kristol and his lot felt Americans were too soft and silly

in response to a dangerous world translate: more troops blood and treasure spilt in the ME while Americans - a disrespectful arrogant people - would need to be forced to live insecurely so that they'll more humbly appreciate the *securities* that only conservative neocon republicanism could, or so they thought, bring forward. It didn't work out as easily as they thought it would but it is clear neocons have made their contributions to America being very much less secure

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. I figured that out February 11th 2003,

My first encounter with the TSA at LAX after their creation, the line was backed up all the way out of Terminal 3 and into the street, a guy who literally looked like David Spade was going up and down the line screaming nonsense instructions. A minute behind him was a woman who could barely move screaming contradictory instructions. As an frazzled Alaska Airlines employee was trying to prioritize people in the line based on their departing flight who was herself being screamed by another TSA goon that she was interfering.

When I finally got to the front of the line there was an elderly woman being held up by her armpits as two men I guess were her husband and son as an extremely rude woman prodded at her with a metal detector.

And it has only gotten worse since then,

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

41. Best YouTube Video Ever, the TSA could use this as a training video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AWw7t5zj0

[Incitatus]

46. omg

[MindPilot]

51. Oh that was just fucking awesome!

:applause::rofl:

[Morning Dew]

55. WOW ! Just wow.

[alarimer]

48. And the chickenshit crybabies have won.

We are a nation of little babies, who need "Daddy" to reassure them that everything is going to be okay. "Just let us see you naked before you get on a plane and everything will be okay."

When those full body scanners fail (as they inevitably will), then what? Personally I hope a lot of people stop flying and some airlines go out of business. Maybe then they will stop with the bullshit security theater. NONE of the things they are doing now wil prevent another incident. What stopped this bomber and shoe bomber was a couple of individual, ordinary passengers. Now, of course, they won't be allowed out of their seats by the stupid rules. Well, break the fucking rules, I say.

People are so goddamn stupid that they do not realize that you are many, many times more likely to die on the way to the airport.

[Javaman]

50. as soon as the patriot act was passed, they won.

the chicken littles and fear mongerers in our government helped them.

[MindPilot]

52. I agree. They won a long time ago.

We spend an inordinate amount of time, effort and money protecting ourselves from stuff that is incredibly rare, while the real day-to-day hazards go largely unnoticed.

[Morning Dew]

53. In a sense, the terrorists did win.

Thanks to the Bushies, we've been conditioned to live in fear since 9-11-2001.

Yellow alert - NO ! Orange Alert !! Get plastic sheeting and duct tape !!!

Be careful of what you say.

We need total information awareness.

If you don't have anything to hide, why should you be worried.

The citizens consumers of the Empire cower in fear.

[Mari333]

54. we are the terrorists, we did this to ourselves

by occupying other peoples countries, by stealing their resources, and killing their people.
and now we are merely terrorizing ourselves again.

[MindPilot]

56. US border guards now search vehicles _entering_ Mexico.

I spent the week before Xmas working in TJ. What a miserable commute, but it was only for a week.

I was astonished to see that the US border guards have set up a checkpoint just ahead of the Mexico Port of Entry. On some days they stopped and searched every vehicle leaving the US. The guards were armed with shotguns and would step up and surround the vehicle, open doors to look inside, order the trunk opened, ask questions like "why are you going to Mexico", demand ID & check driver's licenses.

That's on the US side. Apparently you now waive your Fourth Amendment rights by approaching the Mexican border.

[bloomington67]

57. Well on the border...

Uh....I think that you need to understand that they are looking for people. Namely, people in trunks. You see the Mexican drug lords and their helpers on the US side kidnap the folks that they want to kill and take them across the border in order to more easily get away with killing them. So the drugs come north and the murders go south. I'm sorry, I don't have an issue with someone searching my car when I'm crossing an international border. I know your point is that it's not the Mexicans that are searching those vehicles, however the Mexicans certainly aren't ever known for corruption are they?

[MindPilot]

58. Yeah I understand. Welcome to DU!

You've been here six months and only five posts?

I get why they do it, and I get that it is probably necessary, but as an old guy, I have a real visceral reaction to heavily armed Americans stopping and searching my vehicle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. And Americans are not known for corruption either

that said, no they are not looking for people, they are looking for weapons.

People are just bonus points.

Oh and weapons are more than just a fair target for BOTH governments.

[krabigirl]

66. Yikes...now this is scary..why do they care if we leave?!

Don't want us to realize that the US isn't all that great?

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. As I said above

they are looking for weapons. They don't care ABOUT YOU... and if somebody is in the trunk they might as well just saved their lives... but they are looking for chiefly high powered weapons. It is part of an agreement with the Mexican Government to try to curb the black trade in guns.

It helps I read the damn agreement in Mexico City.

[malaise]

59. Better question -

do you know who are the real terrorists? Just follow the money and find out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. And they stand on both sides of the law

absolutely.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. The "War(s) on Terror" are a monumental flop.

Our much vaunted military power has proven useless in everything but recruiting more "terrorists".

We have had to abandon any number of useful social programs in the face of an escalating (pun intended) budget deficit much of it brought on by the costs of those lost wars.

There is more, not less, likelihood of terror attacks here because of our delusion of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" approach which has only added to the resentment of much of the Islamic world.

We have surrendered to the fear that terrorist violence aims for by curtailing our own liberties, the very ones that we're are allegedly trying to protect.

By elevating criminal acts to the level of "threats to our way of life" we have made war, or proxy wars, our new "way of life".

And, now, instead of stopping the sheer stupidity of it all, Obama has escalated the wars in a vain, or cynical, hope of protecting his reputation as "tough" and "decisive".

[Igel]

63. Oh, so THAT's what they wanted.

Well, now that we have tighter airport security they'll all stop what they're doing. Whew.

No calls to stop causing that 40% of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. To exit Iraq.

To properly acknowledge Islam's place, stop violating Allah (with or without a condom) and to stop hurting the exquisitely sensitive feelings of Muslims.

No calls to submit to the proper order of things, to make sure that our societies are properly arranged.

They were after nasty airport regulations all along. Crap. Where *were* the translators when we needed them the most.

You know, they really should have been clearer on the matter from the get-go. Had they said, "Institute tough regs on airlines otherwise we'll fly planes into buildings and blow up warships and embassies," I'm sure we'd have complied.

[LynneSin]

70. HAHAHAHAHA +1

:rofl:

[MadrasT]

64. I'm not so sure

I fly, regularly, multiple times per month, and have been doing so since prior to 9/11, both domestically and internationally. (Requirement of my job.)

Yes, it is more inconvenient now, it takes longer to get through all the "hoops," it is a royal PITA, and I don't believe it does a dang bit of good in the name of improving my "safety" while flying.

But I don't feel like I am giving up "freedoms" to do so. Just an extra half hour or hour of time at the beginning of each flight.

Yes, it annoys the CRAP out of me. Yes I am ANNOYED about having to give up that half hour of my precious time. But I don't feel like my "freedom" is violated. Even though I technically "have to fly" (as a condition of my job)... I don't "have to fly". Flying is not a "right". It is a convenience.

If I want that convenience, of getting from point A to point B in less time, I need to decide if I am willing to play their bullshit nanny games in exchange for that convenience.

Pain in the ass, yes.

Waste of time, yes.

Pointless futile exercise, yes.

Violation of my "freedom"? I just don't see it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Rapidscan might change your views

oh never mind.

[krabigirl]

65. Actually, the people in power have won..they havelong wanted a police state here.

I won't fly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. The rabit hole will expand to other aspects of your life

that is coming.

[KillCapitalism]

67. I wonder if health insurance co's trained these terrorists

instead if Al Qaeda?

This new war on terror puts health care reform on the shelf indefinitely.