Interesting parallel to Trump's immigration moratorium

[BackInTex]

Britain bans certain items from SPECIFIC countries of flight origination.

Seems like profiling to me.

Britain last night took the dramatic step of banning laptops from the cabins of UK-bound flights from six countries, amid fears terrorists have perfected a new type of airline bomb.

The ban is expected to cause chaos as airlines and passengers struggle with the new rules.

[Bob Juch]

Britain bans certain items from SPECIFIC countries of flight origination.

Seems like profiling to me.

Britain last night took the dramatic step of banning laptops from the cabins of UK-bound flights from six countries, amid fears terrorists have perfected a new type of airline bomb.

The ban is expected to cause chaos as airlines and passengers struggle with the new rules.

Um, you know we did the same thing a few days ago? That is not at all parallel to Trump's immigration moratorium. It's probably due to the lack of proper screening at the airports in those countries.

[BackInTex]

That is not at all parallel to Trump's immigration moratorium. It's probably due to the lack of proper screening at the airports in those countries.

Trump's immigration moratorium is based on lack of proper screening/documentation in those countries. It's parallel. (based on lack of screening, specific to defined list of countries)

[Bob Juch]

That is not at all parallel to Trump's immigration moratorium. It's probably due to the lack of proper screening at the airports in those countries.

Trump's immigration moratorium is based on lack of proper screening/documentation in those countries. It's parallel. (based on lack of screening, specific to defined list of countries)

No, we do the screening. No one from any country gets in without thorough vetting.

[BackInTex]

No, we do the screening. No one from any country gets in without thorough vetting.

Well, yes, but we can only screen based on documentation derived from the originating country. And when the documentation process in the originating country is broken, then the value of that documentation for vetting purposes is limited or worthless. My point stands.

[silverscreenselect]

No, we do the screening. No one from any country gets in without thorough vetting.

Well, yes, but we can only screen based on documentation derived from the originating country. And when the documentation process in the originating country is broken, then the value of that documentation for vetting purposes is limited or worthless. My point stands.

I might point out that the British attacker who was killed was native born, so there's no amount of screening that could have stopped that.

Going after fake problems that are easy to "solve" (albeit in an unconstitutional manner) is a good way to avoid dealing with real problems if you're a hopeless incompetent like Trump.

[earendel]

I'm curious to know why TSA (or whoever) believes that laptops, game systems, etc., would be safer in the cargo hold than in the cabin. Wouldn't a remote control or timer on a "laptop bomb" in the hold be just as deadly as manually detonating it in the cabin?

[BackInTex]

I might point out that the British attacker who was killed was native born, so there's no amount of screening that could have stopped that.

Going after fake problems that are easy to "solve" (albeit in an unconstitutional manner) is a good way to avoid dealing with real problems if you're a hopeless incompetent like Trump.

You're saying that there is only a single problem (whatever the problem is with the current GB attack), or are you saying we should only be concerned with a single problem (whatever the problem is with the current GB attack)?

After answering that question, please answer what the problem is with the current GB attack.

And also let us know how you know that the current GB attacker was not influenced by immigrants.

[BackInTex]

I'm curious to know why TSA (or whoever) believes that laptops, game systems, etc., would be safer in the cargo hold than in the cabin. Wouldn't a remote control or timer on a "laptop bomb" in the hold be just as deadly as manually detonating it in the cabin?

I don't know, but it may be that the current concern with the technology is that the small size means that the explosive device must be placed near the side of the plane to do actual damage and that in the cargo hold the bags are not placed next to (or certain to be) the outer skin of the plane.

[earendel]

I'm curious to know why TSA (or whoever) believes that laptops, game systems, etc., would be safer in the cargo hold than in the cabin. Wouldn't a remote control or timer on a "laptop bomb" in the hold be just as deadly as manually detonating it in the cabin?

I don't know, but it may be that the current concern with the technology is that the small size means that the explosive device must be placed near the side of the plane to do actual damage and that in the cargo hold the bags are not placed next to (or certain to be) the outer skin of the plane.

That makes sense.

[Bob Juch]

I'm curious to know why TSA (or whoever) believes that laptops, game systems, etc., would be safer in the cargo hold than in the cabin. Wouldn't a remote control or timer on a "laptop bomb" in the hold be just as deadly as manually detonating it in the cabin?

Probably deadlier. The one bomb that did explode just blew a small hole in the fuselage and only the bomber was killed. One in the cargo hold might cause a fuel tank to explode.

[silverscreenselect]

I might point out that the British attacker who was killed was native born, so there's no amount of screening that could have stopped that.

Going after fake problems that are easy to "solve" (albeit in an unconstitutional manner) is a good way to avoid dealing with real problems if you're a hopeless incompetent like Trump.

You're saying that there is only a single problem (whatever the problem is with the current GB attack), or are you saying we should only be concerned with a single problem (whatever the problem is with the current GB attack)?

After answering that question, please answer what the problem is with the current GB attack.

And also let us know how you know that the current GB attacker was not influenced by immigrants.

The way to catch terrorists in this country (or in Britain or any other modern Western country) is with police work, and we've uncovered a number of plots since 9/11. But effective police work is tough, and even when you've got someone on your radar, that doesn't always translate into an arrest.

But police work is (and the related intelligence gathering) is tough and it often doesn't result in publicity worthy moments. Signing executive orders is easy and makes for great photo ops. After which, executing those orders also isn't easy. Further, by adopting those sorts of tactics, the U.S. plays right into the hands of the terrorists who use these measures as recruiting tools. Where do you think ISIS came from? From the people we alienated in our ham-handed invasion of Iraq. And the terrorists will continue to use Trump and his tactics to recruit new members for the next decade and the next ISIS.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm curious to know why TSA (or whoever) believes that laptops, game systems, etc., would be safer in the cargo hold than in the cabin. Wouldn't a remote control or timer on a "laptop bomb" in the hold be just as deadly as manually detonating it in the cabin?

Probably deadlier. The one bomb that did explode just blew a small hole in the fuselage and only the bomber was killed. One in the cargo hold might cause a fuel tank to explode.

Wouldn't there also be a concern that the electronic device might be used to jam or take control of the plane's own electronics?

[Bob Juch]

I'm curious to know why TSA (or whoever) believes that laptops, game systems, etc., would be safer in the cargo hold than in the cabin. Wouldn't a remote control or timer on a "laptop bomb" in the hold be just as deadly as manually detonating it in the cabin?

Probably deadlier. The one bomb that did explode just blew a small hole in the fuselage and only the bomber was killed. One in the cargo hold might cause a fuel tank to explode.

Wouldn't there also be a concern that the electronic device might be used to jam or take control of the plane's own electronics?

It might be able to jam communications with the ground but to take control of the plane you'd have to hack into cables.

[BackInTex]

The way to catch terrorists in this country......

If they aren't in this country, problem solved, at least for the ones not in this country. Therefore, keeping them out is better than allowing them in and hoping to catch them.

Further, by adopting those sorts of tactics, the U.S. plays right into the hands of the terrorists who use these measures as recruiting tools. Where do you think ISIS came from? From the people we alienated in our ham-handed invasion of Iraq. And the terrorists will continue to use Trump and his tactics to recruit new members for the next decade and the next ISIS.

So......what increases ISIS is trying to minimize ISIS so if we just allow ISIS it won't exist. Seems logical.

[silverscreenselect]

The way to catch terrorists in this country......

If they aren't in this country, problem solved, at least for the ones not in this country. Therefore, keeping them out is better than allowing them in and hoping to catch them.

Further, by adopting those sorts of tactics, the U.S. plays right into the hands of the terrorists who use these measures as recruiting tools. Where do you think ISIS came from? From the people we alienated in our ham-handed invasion of Iraq. And the terrorists will continue to use Trump and his tactics to recruit new members for the next decade and the next ISIS.

So......what increases ISIS is trying to minimize ISIS so if we just allow ISIS it won't exist. Seems logical.

1) The methods we're adopting aren't all that effective at "keeping them out," since there are plenty of ways for them to get in. But this was never about keeping them out. It was about giving people the impression that Trump was doing something effective to keep them out.

2) At one time oyster fishermen tried to keep starfish from eating the oyster beds by chopping the starfish into pieces and tossing them back in the ocean. That didn't work too well. ISIS needs to keep recruiting new people for its network, and Trump is making that much, much easier with his ham handed efforts that don't actually do much to eliminate existing ISIS members or disrupt their operations.

[Bob Juch]

The way to catch terrorists in this country......

If they aren't in this country, problem solved, at least for the ones not in this country. Therefore, keeping them out is better than allowing them in and hoping to catch them.

Further, by adopting those sorts of tactics, the U.S. plays right into the hands of the terrorists who use these measures as recruiting tools. Where do you think ISIS came from? From the people we alienated in our ham-handed invasion of Iraq. And the terrorists will continue to use Trump and his tactics to recruit new members for the next decade and the next ISIS.

So......what increases ISIS is trying to minimize ISIS so if we just allow ISIS it won't exist. Seems logical.

1) The methods we're adopting aren't all that effective at "keeping them out," since there are plenty of ways for them to get in. But this was never about keeping them out. It was about giving people the impression that Trump was doing something effective to keep them out.

2) At one time oyster fishermen tried to keep starfish from eating the oyster beds by chopping the starfish into pieces and tossing them back in the ocean. That didn't work too well. ISIS needs to keep recruiting new people for its network, and Trump is making that much, much easier with his ham handed efforts that don't actually do much to eliminate existing ISIS members or disrupt their operations.

Killing innocent civilians in mosques and schools is a good way to add recruits to ISIS.

[BackInTex]

If they aren't in this country, problem solved, at least for the ones not in this country. Therefore, keeping them out is better than allowing them in and hoping to catch them.




So......what increases ISIS is trying to minimize ISIS so if we just allow ISIS it won't exist. Seems logical.

1) The methods we're adopting aren't all that effective at "keeping them out," since there are plenty of ways for them to get in. But this was never about keeping them out. It was about giving people the impression that Trump was doing something effective to keep them out.

2) At one time oyster fishermen tried to keep starfish from eating the oyster beds by chopping the starfish into pieces and tossing them back in the ocean. That didn't work too well. ISIS needs to keep recruiting new people for its network, and Trump is making that much, much easier with his ham handed efforts that don't actually do much to eliminate existing ISIS members or disrupt their operations.

Killing innocent civilians in mosques and schools is a good way to add recruits to ISIS.

I'm glad you weren't in charge of WWII.

[earendel]

So......what increases ISIS is trying to minimize ISIS so if we just allow ISIS it won't exist. Seems logical.

To some extent that's true. But it's not being done by foreigners coming here; from what I've read the radicalization of Muslims in America is happening via social media and the Internet - videos produced overseas and made available online, for instance.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm glad you weren't in charge of WWII.

The easiest way to lose a war is to blindly adopt the tactics that were used in the last war.

[Bob Juch]

I'm glad you weren't in charge of WWII.

The easiest way to lose a war is to blindly adopt the tactics that were used in the last war.

Yeah, look at Vietnam.