Video: Outrageously outrageous airport security ad
posted at 2:17 pm on October 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The Freepers are in heaven.
Look out, there’s a guy in a headdress!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
How do you stop the Timothy McVeigh’s? Or anybody that falls outside of your predefined profile?
GregH on October 10, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Tweezers?
My wife always get singled out for extended screening.
Admittedly, she’s much better looking than I….
Kini on October 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Greg –
When someone other than a young Muslim male blows up an airplane … you be sure to let us know.
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 2:26 PM
GregH, the real question is how do we expect to stop another 9-11 if we advertise the fact that we don’t allow racial profiling.
In fact, if someone feels they are being profiled, they are given the information to make a complaint and sue. And false legs aren’t even allowed to be searched.
The truth, whether it’s PC or not is that the would-be London terrorists specifically targetted an airport because it doesn’t profile, while staying away from the one that does.
I wouldn’t argue that profiling is the only way to go, but I don’t believe our safety should be sacrificed for political correctness.
Esthier on October 10, 2006 at 2:30 PM
I actually do agree with GregH. Look up photos of the guys who were going to blow up the Holland Tunnel. Barely anything Muslim about them when they’re wearing normal clothing. On 9/11, Atta was wearing business dress, not an Islamic smock and head dress. The failed English hijacking plot – women and white converts were involved in that. Those idiots in Florida who were still in the planning stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower, all of them, black.
We shouldn’t be screening for stereotypes, we should be screening everyone.
Savage on October 10, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Any 84 year old white women in that plot?
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Silly liberal. No one claimed profiling is an end all to terror. (I know, your side believes capturing Bin Laden is the end all). But it helps. Statistically young Muslim men are committing acts of terror, especially using airplanes. Just like statistically psycho serial killers have been white men, which is why the Beltway Sniper was profiled as a white man. It’s not racist, it’s a legitimate law enforcement technique used ALL THE TIME. When Columbia does it’s investigation in to what kids were involved in the stage rush during the Minutemen speech, they won’t waste resources looking for the culprit at GOP events or Karl Rove’s house.
But again, the point is to help stop terrorist attacks. No one claims it will end terror. Smarten up.
RightWinged on October 10, 2006 at 2:34 PM
We should be looking for Bombers.
Not just little ol Ladies, with blue hair…. as dangerous at they are, ever sit next to one on a plane….
Profile everyone… it’s worth the wait.
Kini on October 10, 2006 at 2:34 PM
GregH,
The idea is to identify those with a greater likelihood of intending harm. No single profile will fit all terrorists, but if certain characteristics are overrepresented among terrorists, it seems to me it makes sense to give those people with those characteristics extra scrutiny.
mikeyboss on October 10, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Screen everyone except 84 year old white women, they’re going to send an 84 year old white woman to detonate themselves.
Savage on October 10, 2006 at 2:38 PM
Liberals will complain if you profile too much, but then when you search everyone … they complain that it’s excessive, or that they can’t take lipstick onboard.
The liberal answer is to simply not search anyone and if we get blown up … blame it on Bush.
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 2:40 PM
don’t you just love it when liberals like GregH want to give their terorrist buddies a free pass through airport security because liberals don’t want racial profiling
Starblazer on October 10, 2006 at 2:40 PM
But maybe we shouldn’t be telling anyone (especially not the NYT) who we’re profiling.
My goal would be to ensure you’ve checked everyone who fits the profile, then move onto random checks of little old ladies with blue hair.
But saying that an 84-year-old lady could blow herself up is not a reason to let Muslim men between the ages of 20-40 get by with a pass.
Esthier on October 10, 2006 at 2:42 PM
How do you stop the Timothy McVeigh’s
And you wonder why no one takes the Democrats seriously on national security. We look for ways to close the holes and the Dems only want to note their staunch support for minorities. Bravo.
Oh and while we’re on the subject, when you water down important words with pithy social justice phrases, it doesn’t help the cause either. You know, “poverty is terrorism”, “the U.S. is a facist state”, “meat is murder”, etc.
CrankyNeocon on October 10, 2006 at 2:43 PM
Anybody who doesn’t believe profiling takes place doesn’t ride mass transit back and forth to work. Here in ATL with our train system let a Middle Eastern man step onto the train car and there are about 40 sets of eyes instantly scanning him. Liberals can try and act like they don’t do it but I never see anybody looking away, and no I don’t ask everyone what their political affilation is.
LakeRuins on October 10, 2006 at 2:44 PM
The libs also assume that if there is profiling it is once and set in stone. As if law enforcement is not a fluid endeavor trying to stay ahead or at least adapting to the times and tactics of the enemy.
Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 2:47 PM
The ad is so far over the top that it is practically useless in driving home any point about making realistic standards in airport security.
Karl on October 10, 2006 at 2:48 PM
Peeking up the dog’s poop shoot- Classic.
Valiant on October 10, 2006 at 2:49 PM
But it is damn funny.
CrankyNeocon on October 10, 2006 at 2:49 PM
I’ve got a solution for all of this stupidity. Airlines should come up with two different branches. Each airline would have a “liberal branch” and a “conservative branch.”
The liberal branch will not do any searches and will make sure that your travel is completely uninterrupted and that everyone’s constitutional rights are not violated. No physical searches. No video cameras in the boarding areas. Nothing.
The conservative branch will search everyone, every package, and will use every type of profiling imaginable.
It accomplishes two things.
One, it stops the constant childish whining …
And two, it’s bound to reduce the population of liberals fairly quickly.
If only we could test this theory in San Francisco. Declare it a “liberal zone” and pull out all military and police support. Let them have what they ask for. No government, no protections, and no interference.
Beautiful.
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM
That ad was really funny! And sure to infuriate libs, making it even funnier.
Not to send the PC police after me, I think the greater danger are the people doing the searches themselves. It seems like almost every security guard and screener in Northern Virginia (including at government centers, Dulles, National, etc.) is Muslim/Arabic.
januarius on October 10, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Savage, as others have said, profiling isn’t guaranteed to stop all terrorist threats… the idea is to play to the percentages though.
And if/when an 84 year old white woman blows up a plane, or is implicated in a terrorist plot, or vows death to all Americans who look at a cartoon, then yes, strip search ‘em.
dalewalt on October 10, 2006 at 3:03 PM
Yes januarious. I’ve noticed that too. Ironic.
I work in a secure building and every one of our guards are Pakistani. They even increased the security during Ramadan and added two more Pakistani guards.
It’s almost as if they do it on purpose to mock us.
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 3:05 PM
I was thinking you’d go a different route and say that all the libs would suddenly decide that they’re conservatives if given the option of flying with or without security.
Esthier on October 10, 2006 at 3:05 PM
Any guesses on how long YouTube lets that stay up?
SouthernGent on October 10, 2006 at 3:06 PM
No, liberals are too stupid. They actually believe they are right. They believe there’s no threat.
They would gleefully board the airplane with no worries in the world.
Heaven!
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 3:10 PM
GregH, take a look here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
and then compare it to the number of terror acts by white supremacists or any other non-Muslim group in the last 5 years.
Are we learning yet?
infidel4life on October 10, 2006 at 3:13 PM
liberals only believe that the threat to this country & the freedom that they enjoy so much & believe that the Patriot Act takes away their freedom (which they have no proof of)is only one person they fear more than Bin Laden (who’s loyalty they stand by than their own country) & that is George Bush
Starblazer on October 10, 2006 at 3:19 PM
You all have to see the Airline Safety Video
Guess which Airline….
Kini on October 10, 2006 at 3:19 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZDepABf9JOg
OK try again
Kini on October 10, 2006 at 3:20 PM
Ok – check this one out – just up on Drudge – a hollywood producer nails the Dems, most particularly Madeleine Albright – for their appeasement. Truth told in jest…
The David Zucker Albright Ad
CP on October 10, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Lethal injection seems to do the trick.
Pablo on October 10, 2006 at 3:45 PM
‘Bout damn time.
The Ugly American on October 10, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Brilliant. The GOP claims they turned down the ad because it was “too hot” knowing it will be distributed all over YouTube anyway, muting any future whining by Reid and Pelosi.
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 3:56 PM
Pablo –
Excellent idea, but libs are against that too. Most of them probably feel McVeigh could have been rehabilitated.
Besides … we all know that whole Oklahoma City thing was Bush’s fault. McVeigh was just a stooge for Haliburton.
Gregor on October 10, 2006 at 3:59 PM
it would be nice if the GOP does use this ad soon.
Starblazer on October 10, 2006 at 4:04 PM
well, yea it is Funny.
Hehe. But it’s hard to believe it was a seriously intended ad. This is more like something off of SNL
Karl on October 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM
The world has thousands of Attas but only one McVeigh. Why is McVeigh even relevant at this point?
CookeyD on October 10, 2006 at 4:26 PM
This reminds me of something I was telling everyone a couple months ago. Do your own profiling, sense the government and companies won’t. You don’t have to be politically correct or fair as an individual, so it’s up to all of us to profile. If you see a guy in a turban or somewhat Middle Eastern appearance on your plane… pay closer attention to him than others and don’t feel guilty about it.
And while everyone, including myself, already made GregH look like an idiot for his McVeigh comment, I think it can be summed up with a question to GregH – What does airport security have to do with Timothy McVeigh? I know, you’ll say that was your point, but if that’s the case your point is irrelevant, this ad is about airport screening. See my previous comment if you need it explained.
RightWinged on October 10, 2006 at 4:26 PM
Can’t access the video at work…it had better still be there when I get home!
Bob's Kid on October 10, 2006 at 4:31 PM
I’m not saying don’t profile because I think the screening system, as it is, is solid. I’m saying don’t profile because I think the system should screen every single person. There should be an assembly line of checks barring entry to train stations and airports that every single person who wants to use that kind of mass transit has to go through. I’m serious. Drop your luggage in the X-Ray machine, sweep through the bomb detector, on to the metal detector, a brief pat down, put your shoes back on, grab your stuff and go directly to your gate. Keep it moving at a steady pace, have deference lines in case of overflow and problems, and it would be much safer, and much more efficient, than what’s already there now. That’s what going to the airport should be, totally serious.
What this boils down to, is who do we trust, and why? We trust the mother holding her baby more than a young, Muslim male. Okay, why? Appearance. But we don’t know anything about either person. The YMM could be a flaming patriot who was descended from soldiers in the revolutionary war, like in that Kiefer Sutherland ad, whereas the mother holding her baby could be another damn Lynne Stewart. How the crap do we know? Screen everyone, us and them.
Savage on October 10, 2006 at 4:36 PM
It’s called Risk Management, savage. The gov’t has to try to reduce the chances of terrorists doing damage, but in a not-so-perfect-world, you have to decide what risks you can reasonably mitigate, and what ones you can’t. Sure, the young mother could be a fanatical terrorist, but as many people here have said, there is absolutely NO instances of young mothers trying to get on our planes to blow them up (or crash them).
Appearance? How about history. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
dalewalt on October 10, 2006 at 4:48 PM
Greg, why don’t you tell us? I’m sure that there must be some liberal somewhere with an excellent plan to stop the terrorists, but why won’t they share the knowledge? Don’t they care if innocent Americans get hurt?
DannoJyd on October 10, 2006 at 6:06 PM
I suggest you read this wiki article. And this one.
“Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Exactly. Liberals are trapped in a 9/10 world. People like you are trapped in a 9/11 world, which is just as bad. We have to constantly adapt to enemy tactics, and ethnic profiling is not the way.
Savage on October 10, 2006 at 7:02 PM
Yeah, being trapped in the real world is bad, real bad.
Yes! We must adapt to our enemies’ chameleon-like ability to change sex, race, religion, and age! Today, they’re mostly Arab, Muslim men under 35, but tomorrow they could all be post-menopausal, Hottentot women! We must adapt! It’s true!
Kralizec on October 10, 2006 at 9:41 PM
As someone who works in the airline industry, let me just say: Screen EVERYBODY! Well, guess what, we already do that. But we should also *profile* muslims. That said, the McViegh question IS relevent. White or black muslim converts (not that he was one) are more dangerous than arab muslims because they blend in, so we screen everybody, as mentioned above.
As soon as we have another terror attack on a plane in this country, you libs will scream about how Bush failed to protect us. What we really need is protection from you libs, then we can protect ourseles from our EXTERNAL enemies.
“…all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Tony737 on October 10, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Julia Roberts once claimed to look in a dictionary, and lo, she found Republicans between Reptiles and Repugnant…well, ain’t she a beaming light of brilliance! When I want to look up Republicans, I just go to C Span and look between the Quislings and Spineless Saps and lo, I find them there in abundance.
Jewel on October 11, 2006 at 1:05 AM
Jewel –
Did you mean to write Democrats?
Gregor on October 11, 2006 at 2:12 AM
While I understand the want of profiling, my only fear is that once it becomes accepted policy, the terrorists will disguise themselves as little old ladies or actually recruit a real one. They already disguise themselves as women in burqas.
Also, to be fair, Timothy McVeigh would not have fit the profile. It’s not as great a danger, but there are non-Muslims who wish us ill, and what if the next Muslim terrorist is an “all-American” convert?
I’m wanting to support it, but I can’t get rid of this fear.
hadsil on October 11, 2006 at 3:00 AM
GregH wrote: “How do you stop the Timothy McVeigh’s? Or anybody that falls outside of your predefined profile? ”
When a non-Arabic speaking, non-middle eastern, non-muslim, non-young male, hijacks a jet and crashes it into a skyscraper, then you can add him to the profile.
Or you can simply make him move his Ryder ™ truck and not leave it unattended at the airport.
georgej on October 11, 2006 at 5:34 AM
“Greg, why don’t you tell us? I’m sure that there must be some liberal somewhere with an excellent plan to stop the terrorists, but why won’t they share the knowledge? Don’t they care if innocent Americans get hurt?”
Danno– HE DOESN’T HAVE ONE.
None of these leftist useless idiots have a plan to secure the United States from terrorist attacks. They don’t want a plan because they don’t give a shit about national security.
All they do, as President Bush said on 9/28/06:
georgej on October 11, 2006 at 5:38 AM
Comment pages: