Terrorist babies.

[George Patterson]

They're stopping babies at the airports now
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X33D23E9B

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 8/15/05 5:56 PM, in article hc8Me.2333$zb.2182@trndny02, "George
Patterson" > wrote:

> They're stopping babies at the airports now
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X33D23E9B
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Now, now. We wouldn't want to profile and hurt the young, Islamic male
feelings.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "GP" == George Patterson > writes:

GP> They're stopping babies at the airports now
GP> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X33D23E9B

Reminds of how Ted Kennedy has been stopped several times 'cause his
name comes up on a list. Christ can't the TSA get a freakin' clue?

[Jose]

> Reminds of how Ted Kennedy has been stopped several times 'cause his
> name comes up on a list. Christ can't the TSA get a freakin' clue?

Maybe this is the only way Congress will get a clue.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "GP" == George Patterson > writes:
>
> GP> They're stopping babies at the airports now
> GP> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X33D23E9B
>
> Reminds of how Ted Kennedy has been stopped several times 'cause his
> name comes up on a list. Christ can't the TSA get a freakin' clue?

Ahhhhh, well no. Not even if one hit them square in the forehead.

[Judah]

The idea that an 11 month old baby is a terrorist is ludicrous, for sure.

But the woman says, "It was bizarre," Sanden said. "I was hugely pregnant,
and I was like, 'We look really threatening.'"

A pregnant woman can be carrying a bomb just like anyone else, even if she
doesn't know about it...

http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=4570

I'm not sure what faxing the baby's passport would have done to prove they
were not terrorists, though. Terrorists can have passports, too..

They should have just searched them, searched the bags, let them on the
plane, and been done with it. They shouldn't even have told them the reason
they were picked for a search.

The problem with the TSA is not only bad intelligence, but it's also that
they share too much information on the methods behind their madness.


George Patterson > wrote in news:hc8Me.2333$zb.2182
@trndny02:

> They're stopping babies at the airports now
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X33D23E9B
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> The idea that an 11 month old baby is a terrorist is ludicrous, for sure.
>
> But the woman says, "It was bizarre," Sanden said. "I was hugely pregnant,
> and I was like, 'We look really threatening.'"
>
> A pregnant woman can be carrying a bomb just like anyone else, even if she
> doesn't know about it...

If the pregnant woman's name was the one on the "watch list", then impeding
their progress might have been warranted.

But when the name on the list matches that of an infant, it should be
obvious to even the dumbest government employee that the name on the list
refers to someone OTHER than that infant.

Frankly, of the many problems with this whole "watch list" thing, one is
that the government does not explain how a person's name winds up on the
list in the first place. Do they just pick names that sound like something
a terrorist has? Or does each name on the list correspond to a real person
of whom the government already has suspicions?

The former would be absurd (though certainly not outside the realm of
possibility in today's environment). But if the latter, the list should
also include an age, and possibly other descriptive elements (height comes
to mind). A person with the same name, but with *obviously* different
characteristic otherwise should be allowed to pass as though their name were
not on the list at all.

I think it's great, actually, that the TSA is stopping infants, and even
children, when their names are on the list. Idiotic behavior like this is
one of the best ways we have to getting the American public to understand
what a fiasco they have allowed to occur, and getting it fixed.

Pete

[ET]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The idea that an 11 month old baby is a terrorist is ludicrous, for
>> sure.
>>
>> But the woman says, "It was bizarre," Sanden said. "I was hugely
>> pregnant, and I was like, 'We look really threatening.'"
>>
>> A pregnant woman can be carrying a bomb just like anyone else, even
>> if she doesn't know about it...
>
> If the pregnant woman's name was the one on the "watch list", then
> impeding their progress might have been warranted.
>
> But when the name on the list matches that of an infant, it should be
> obvious to even the dumbest government employee that the name on the
> list refers to someone OTHER than that infant.
>
> Frankly, of the many problems with this whole "watch list" thing, one
> is that the government does not explain how a person's name winds up
> on the list in the first place. Do they just pick names that sound
> like something a terrorist has? Or does each name on the list
> correspond to a real person of whom the government already has
> suspicions?
>
> The former would be absurd (though certainly not outside the realm of
> possibility in today's environment). But if the latter, the list
> should also include an age, and possibly other descriptive elements
> (height comes to mind). A person with the same name, but with
> *obviously* different characteristic otherwise should be allowed to
> pass as though their name were not on the list at all.
>
> I think it's great, actually, that the TSA is stopping infants, and
> even children, when their names are on the list. Idiotic behavior
> like this is one of the best ways we have to getting the American
> public to understand what a fiasco they have allowed to occur, and
> getting it fixed.
>
> Pete
>
>
>

Yup, and the funniest thing about the whole "random search" thing, is
it's VERY clearly marked on your ticket if your getting searched. What
kind of idiot with bad intentions would just not dump his weapon or
whatever into the trash when he sees that mark on his ticket. Or worse
yet just pass it to his buddy who did NOT get the "extra pat down" mark.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-16, Wizard of Draws > wrote:
> Now, now. We wouldn't want to profile and hurt the young, Islamic male
> feelings.

Although the thing with babies is obviously stupidity at work, you have
to be careful with profiling. Already some profiling is used - if you
buy a one way ticket last minute by credit card on the Internet it seems
to flag you for a check. Guess what - the terrorists will just buy round
trip tickets by check at a travel agent. If you start profiling young
males with brown skin, you wind up getting taken by surprise by the next
Timothy McVeigh who happens to be brainwashed into being a suicide
bomber.

The push for ID cards and the like is also a complete waste of taxpayers
money too. Take for example the London tube bombers. They all had valid
ID and it was trivial for the Police to find out who they were. It
didn't exactly take the Police long to find out who the incompetent
suicide bombers were and round them up either.

The only solution is good intelligence. A list of names doesn't help
since even a ten year old knows that a person's name is hardly unique.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> But when the name on the list matches that of an infant, it should be
> obvious to even the dumbest government employee that the name on the list
> refers to someone OTHER than that infant.

The available evidence would suggest you're underestimating the possible
scale of "dumbest" <grin>.

[...]

> Idiotic behavior like this is
> one of the best ways we have to getting the American public to understand
> what a fiasco they have allowed to occur, and getting it fixed.

Sadly, I think you're making the same mistake again. Take a look at this
example:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805/ap_on_el_pr/bush_ap_ipsos_poll_3

According to this, 50% of the respondants to the poll view Bush as
dishonest. Further on, "almost two-thirds" view him as strong and likable.

Whichever side of that debate on which one sits, those numbers tell a funny
story. There's a nontrivial population out there that views Bush as
strong, likable, and dishonest.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't like people that are dishonest to me
<laugh>.

- Andrew

[Judah]

"Everybody loves a villain..."


Andrew Gideon > wrote in
online.com:

<snip>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805/ap_on_el_pr/bush_ap_ipsos_poll_3
>
> According to this, 50% of the respondants to the poll view Bush as
> dishonest. Further on, "almost two-thirds" view him as strong and
> likable.
>
> Whichever side of that debate on which one sits, those numbers tell a
> funny story. There's a nontrivial population out there that views
> Bush as strong, likable, and dishonest.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I don't like people that are dishonest to
> me <laugh>.
>
> - Andrew
>
>

[Judah]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The idea that an 11 month old baby is a terrorist is ludicrous, for
>> sure.
>>
>> But the woman says, "It was bizarre," Sanden said. "I was hugely
>> pregnant, and I was like, 'We look really threatening.'"
>>
>> A pregnant woman can be carrying a bomb just like anyone else, even
>> if she doesn't know about it...
>
> If the pregnant woman's name was the one on the "watch list", then
> impeding their progress might have been warranted.
>
> But when the name on the list matches that of an infant, it should be
> obvious to even the dumbest government employee that the name on the
> list refers to someone OTHER than that infant.

The name could have been acquired through the vicious beating of some
captured terrorist suspect who caved in during the interrogation. The plan
could have been to smuggle a bomb on a plane in the daiper of an infant.
The name could absolutely have referred to an infant. The mission could
have even gone by the name of the infant, and surveillance of the infant
and anyone who had recently come in contact with the infant would surely be
appropriate.

> Frankly, of the many problems with this whole "watch list" thing, one
> is that the government does not explain how a person's name winds up
> on the list in the first place. Do they just pick names that sound
> like something a terrorist has? Or does each name on the list
> correspond to a real person of whom the government already has
> suspicions?
>
> The former would be absurd (though certainly not outside the realm of
> possibility in today's environment). But if the latter, the list
> should also include an age, and possibly other descriptive elements
> (height comes to mind). A person with the same name, but with
> *obviously* different characteristic otherwise should be allowed to
> pass as though their name were not on the list at all.

The problem is not that they searched an infant based on a list of names.
The problem is that they waited until the infant came to the metal detector
to start their surveillance, and they told the people the criteria that was
used to select them. The whole surveillance thing is useless when you do it
half-assed and announce to the world which half of your ass your using.

> I think it's great, actually, that the TSA is stopping infants, and
> even children, when their names are on the list. Idiotic behavior
> like this is one of the best ways we have to getting the American
> public to understand what a fiasco they have allowed to occur, and
> getting it fixed.

THIS I COMPLTELY agree with.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> The available evidence would suggest you're underestimating the possible
> scale of "dumbest" <grin>.

Yeah, I thought about that after I wrote those words. I have multiple
personality disorder when it comes to generalizations about the human race.

On the one hand, I really do want to think well of the average human being.
On the other hand, I often have this sinking feeling that a very large
proportion of the human population are just idiots, and that the limits to
their ignorance have yet to be found. The latter thought makes the former
very hard to maintain, and seems the predominant one many days.

That said, if you read my post carefully, I did not actually say that things
were as they should be. Simply that they SHOULD be that way. Likewise,
just because something is one of the best ways to get something fixed, that
doesn't mean that getting things fixed is actually possible. :)

Pete

[George Patterson]

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> Reminds of how Ted Kennedy has been stopped several times 'cause his
> name comes up on a list. Christ can't the TSA get a freakin' clue?

Actually, buried about 2/3s of the way down in the article is the statement that
the TSA has "ordered" the airlines to ignore the "no-fly" list for anyone under
12. It's the airlines that are messing things up, not the TSA.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jose]

> I often have this sinking feeling that a very large
> proportion of the human population are just idiots, and that the limits to
> their ignorance have yet to be found.

Is "ignorance" (mere lack of knowledge) what you really mean here,
rather than "stupidity" (inability to make sense of knowledge)?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I often have this sinking feeling that a very large proportion of the
>> human population are just idiots, and that the limits to their ignorance
>> have yet to be found.
>
> Is "ignorance" (mere lack of knowledge) what you really mean here, rather
> than "stupidity" (inability to make sense of knowledge)?

All of the above. There are a number of pejoratives that apply, IMO.
However, one of the things that offends me the most are people who are NOT
stupid, but who remain willfully ignorant. They're the people I
characterize as "idiots", and they seem to make up the bulk of the
population. There's nothing wrong with their brain; they just choose not to
use it.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:
>
> I think it's great, actually, that the TSA is stopping infants, and
> even children, when their names are on the list. Idiotic behavior
> like this is one of the best ways we have to getting the American
> public to understand what a fiasco they have allowed to occur, and
> getting it fixed.
>
More than likely, neither nor.

Neil