They have at times warned against it. Their rules have gone back and forth many times depending on what they are paranoid about.
2 Likes
This is quite true. Fearmongering changes with the seasons.
2 Likes
This is the fucking risk;
There’s no such thing as proportional. There is no 99.9% of passengers are just fine so let’s not bother with any safety measures. There is secure and not secure. Look, you may think security is a joke and it’s true that in large part it is, but only because it’s not secure enough, not because it’s not needed.
“Significantly inconvenient for passengers”
Oh FFS, it’s a flight without a laptop. You know who else had to fly without a laptop? The entire fucking world until 1996. Read a book instead.
trivial to workaround
It’s not a trivial workaround, it’s targeted at cities with direct flights to the US. Anyone coming though an indirect flight would have to pass through and additional level of security.
It’s easy to lump this in with anti Muslim crap and Trump bullshit, but the fact is there are people targeting the US and US citizens perhaps even more now than ever. The last time we were lax, we were attacked and it resulted in two wars that cost this country tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. What’s "proportional " to that? I’d say an ounce of prevention is worth a shit-ton of cure.
1 Like
I forgot how 9/11 was caused by someone using laptop bombs in the cabin. The new cockpit doors and protocols have done far more to improve security than any TSA nonsense.
Have you ever had to fly for 20 hours with only a book?
Where does it stop? Nobody’s safe until everybody flies in deep stasis?
9 Likes
This is patently false. Security is a verb not a noun. It is a process, not something that can be possessed.
10 Likes
Oh right - we should only prepare for threats based on what has happened in the past, not based on what might happened in the future. And bombs have never been a threat…
Nobody said deep stasis. Without a laptop - it’s an inconvenience, not a cryogenic prison sentence.
So what’s the credible threat here? Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
3 Likes
What I know is that both the US and the UK have enacted similar security measures within the last 24 hours, and that The UK doesn’t follow Washington’s orders, so there is a strong likelihood that there is an immediate threat.
Ouch!!! Low blow man!
You do realise the planes that carried out these attacks launched from domestic airports, so measures like the ones we are actually discussing would have had exactly ZERO impact on them?
…from 10 selected airports. You forgot that bit.
Possible workarounds off the top of my head:
- Depart from one of the many other available airports.
- Depart domestically within the US.
- Use a device other than a laptop.
Anyway, my point is clear. I’m no security expert, but if you are, you are failing spectacularly to make your point clear to me, and getting a bit angry for my liking.
7 Likes
If it’s such a credible threat, then why stop at these airports?
Is a terrorist just going to say, “nah, too much effort” because of a flight connection?
4 Likes
Now, now. No need for ad homs.
There’s always risk. I just refuse to believe that this security theater is anything more than posturing.
If it were such a credible threat, enforcement would be immediate and much further reaching than “96 hours from now in a handful of airports in brown people countries”.
10 Likes
Damn good thing that we know the terrorists will only be flying on airlines who have engaged in unfair competition with US carriers.
10 Likes
Chill dude!
1 Like
You are welcome to debate this thread to your hearts content, but attack the position, not the person, or wide swaths of this discussion are likely to disappear (and I really don’t want that!)
Thanks.
7 Likes
Apologies for the ad homs.
5 Likes
[quote=“ficuswhisperer, post:91, topic:97440, full:true”]Is a terrorist just going to say, “nah, too much effort” because of a flight connection?
[/quote]
Flight connection means additional security measures, especially flying direct to the US. DHS has personnel in overseas airports to monitor security measures to make sure they meet our standards. Those flying from indirect flights aren’t subjected to the same level of scrutiny until they get to major airports where they get put through our system prior to boarding flights.
So what’s the difference between, say, Dubai International Airport and Heathrow then?
6 Likes
That and everybody else on the plane is gonna be lets go down fighting cause a hijacking no longer means a side trip to a cuban airport for a few hours.
That threat is over with.
5 Likes
Respect.
I just feel like there’s a certain amount of baby being thrown out with the bathwater here. Our tendency is to knee-jerk and assume everything the Trump administration does is evil, but remember that there are thousands of career DHA and intelligence employees who work every day to keep us safe without political motivation. The Trump administration had given us no reason to trust their motivation, but there is (yet) no indication that this is coming from higher up, and that this is not a specific reaction to a credible threat as we’ve had in the past.
1 Like
I did 19. But I had giardia, does that count? 
6 Likes
