How many feel that this Code Red and added personal restrictions on air travel is just neo-con fear mongering?

Question

Rather than penalize everyone honest who needs to use air transportation for business and travel and may need to work on their laptops while en route would not just added vigilance have worked?

Why must we allow those neo-cons currently in power to for their own political gain continue to manufacture and reinforce projected public fears of a possible terrorist attack? Robbing honest citizens of free access to electronics like cell phones, lap tops, Ipods or healthy liquids like water, eye drops, baby oil or other health care products for political gains

Would not simple restriction like not allowing people to carry bags of stuff to the restrooms or maybe having all carry ons be stored in the overhead. Passengers needing something would ask a stewardess or steward to get it for them.

I do not believe Americans would allow another 9/11 to happen .... the general public will never again allow itself to be used as a weapon as we are way more aware of the actions of others now.

Answer 1

It is an election year thing, they must appear strong on terror or people have no reason to vote for them, there will be much chest beating in Oct. when they are running for election, Is it right. Hell now, to use terror for political or montary gain is just plain wrong.

Answer 2

Although it is rather inconvenient, it is a wise decision to disallow any substance(s) that might explode in midair.
One can obtain the items at their destination. Many hotels and motels provide these items for their patrons.
Most Americans would not KNOWINGLY allow terrorism.
In a plane, five miles up, with a maniac who wants to die for Allah, it is difficult and decidedly inconvenient to have to wrestle these nuts to the floor, assuming one has the ability to do so.
I am a liberal, but sense is sense. The items are nothing you can't do without until you get safely on the ground.
And although the timing was rather convenient politically speaking, I cautiously believe it was a bang up job the Brits did in bringing these crazies down.

Answer 3

I think legitimate security concerns about muzzies need us to consider things how we weigh our options.. Instilling fear by governments create a fertile bed for creation of a police state.
But what will cause us more problems is when the bad guy(s) get through and carry out their threat by dropping 20 plane in the drink or taking a building down with 20,000 people inside or leaving a nuke on the steps of DC. we will wonder why we didn't do more.

Most people are sheep,

see attached to consider what you are:

http://www.eagletactics.com/on_sheep,.htm

Answer 4

I agree with you, whats most interesting is that prior to the November congressional elections there foiling terror plots, have successfully detained 20,000 illegal immigrants and oil is coming off of resent highs (even with BP shutting down 8% of our oil supply overnight)

I think this is just a neo con scheme to get some election support and keep the majority GOP house.

Answer 5

You give the Americans too much credit.
It's practically impossible to protect against terrorism.
I'd rather wait in line for hours and travel safely than die early or lose a loved one.
But push comes to shove, I do believe that a lot of lives will continue to be lost to terrorism.

Answer 6

It is better to be safe, than to be sorry. As the state of things changes in the world, so will the way we conduct ourselves in our means of transit. Crossing a national border is serious bussiness.

Did you know that bleach, when mixed with ammonia is lethal to any who breathe the fumes? Both are legal liquids. Both combined are deadly.

There is a reason for everything. Partisan politics is only to make people of power richer.

Answer 7

Some used a sharp metal object. So first you couldn't carry sharp metal objects. Another person hid a bomb in his shoe so now you have to take off your shoe. Next someone THOUGHT OF taking some fluids on board, NO ONE ACTUALLY DID IT, mind you, the police say that they caught people who "intended" to do it. And now no one can take fluids on a plane.

Let's revisit:
1. Sharp metal object -- actual action on actual site
2. Explosive in shoe -- intended action close to actual site
3. Fluid explosive -- probable intended action far away from actual site

We have gone from applying restrictions due to actual actions to applying restrictions for actions that people were probably thinking of. We have given up the freedom of carrying pocket knives or pen knives (optional items) to the freedom of carrying water, tooth paste (necessary items) and so on...

Increasingly, one by one... the unsuspecting sheeple are led to the slaughter house.

Answer 8

Uh, huh and how exactly do you knwo who is "honest", with all of the Bush haters out there, who knows who might as far as to do something like that again. I woud rather be safe than sorry. So big deal,people had to throw out their toothpaste.

Answer 9

I believe they have acted appropriately and that you are putting personal convenience above public safety. I don't agree that this restriction is a political manipulation.

Peace and grace to you.

Answer 10

I hear you man! This airport "security" does very little to solve the problem, and only serves as an annoyance to law-abiding travelers!