Terrorist babies.

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.

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

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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

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"

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/...p_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