> No I’m saying it’s completely illogical that you believe the US pressured countries to have the same security screenings on domestic flights within the country including to get on a baby twin engine plane for a 30 minute flight from SJO to XQP or that countries like Great Britain or Israel that had a history of bombings wouldn’t have increased security measures.
Nobody said they successfully pressured everyone about everything. But they do it a some and it doesn't do nothing, unfortunately. There are many countries still now requiring ineffective nonsense they didn't require before 9/11.
> They already see it as dangerous and for poor people
It seems like your argument is that we should needlessly harass middle class airline passengers but not poor people riding mass transit because nobody cares about poor people, but that seems like a bad idea for not just one but both reasons.
> Most bribes are for drugs and other contraband. Have you ever in the past 20 years heard of a case where someone bribed an official to bring a weapon on board a plane that was used to take over or bomb a plane?
Of course not, because the TSA is completely pointless so you don't have to bribe anyone. When someone wants to do that (e.g. shoe bomber) they just go right through without having to pay a bribe, and then they get stopped by passengers or crew.
> why does every major airport in every country have the same procedures?
To begin with, they don't. Moreover, even the original cargo cults were about planes.
> If people started bombing trains. You would see even less ridership from people who had alternatives.
But that was my point. If we cared about any of this and it was actually effective (which it isn't) then it doesn't make sense to do it for planes but not hotels and trains and everything else.
And we can clearly see that not doing it for anything other than planes hasn't resulted in an epidemic of bombings in the US for everything that isn't an aircraft, so why are we still wasting resources and troubling people by doing it for planes?
> Nobody said they successfully pressured everyone about everything. But they do it a some and it doesn't do nothing, unfortunately. There are many countries still now requiring ineffective nonsense they didn't require before 9/11.
So the idea that America forced every single country in the world to basically have the same security procedures even on domestic flights - except for removing your shoes - was completely false?
> It seems like your argument is that we should needlessly harass middle class airline passengers but not poor people riding mass transit because nobody cares about poor people, but that seems like a bad idea for not just one but both reasons
No I’m saying both that historically, no one tried to hijack a train. What exactly are they going to make the train conductor do?
> Of course not, because the TSA is completely pointless so you don't have to bribe anyone. When someone wants to do that (e.g. shoe bomber) they just go right through without having to pay a bribe, and then they get stopped by passengers or crew.
Yes because so many guns ands bombs have gotten through TSA since 2001…
> To begin with, they don't. Moreover, even the original cargo cults were about planes.
Which commercial airports let you get on the plane without going through security?
As far as cargo culting, you do know how often trains got hijacked in the 80s?
> But that was my point. If we cared about any of this and it was actually effective (which it isn't) then it doesn't make sense to do it for planes but not hotels and trains and everything else.
Last time I checked, hijackers can’t run a hotel into a building or make the hotel employees move a hotel to another country.
And Brightline - the high speed train in Florida does require you to go through security domestically and my n=1 experience of getting on the train system from London to France also makes you go through computer.
> So the idea that America forced every single country in the world to basically have the same security procedures even on domestic flights - except for removing your shoes - was completely false?
There was no such premise to begin with. They applied some pressure to some countries which had some effect, others followed suit by following bad precedents set by others.
> No I’m saying both that historically, no one tried to hijack a train. What exactly are they going to make the train conductor do?
I mean, people used to rob trains. That was definitely a thing.
> Yes because so many guns ands bombs have gotten through TSA since 2001…
Look, we need to keep paying the expensive lease on this bear-repelling rock because even though it demonstrably hasn't repelled the actual bears we've encountered, if we didn't have it there might have been thousands of bears, possibly trillions.
> Which commercial airports let you get on the plane without going through security?
How about this one: How many of them require it to be a government agency? Even in a lot of Europe it's private.
> the high speed train in Florida does require you to go through security domestically
Let's get rid of that too then.
> Last time I checked, hijackers can’t run a hotel into a building or make the hotel employees move a hotel to another country.
Neither can you do that with a plane if your plan is to blow it up, so why do you have to take off your shoes and have your drink stolen?
> There was no such premise to begin with. They applied some pressure to some countries which had some effect, others followed suit by following bad precedents set by others.
Your words.
The US has a way of setting bad precedents or pressuring other countries to adopt its inanity, yes. Another reason not to do it here.
And explain to me again why the US would “pressure” countries to increase security on domestic flights? Why would the US care if a propellor plane flying from a literal hut in Manuel Antonio Costa Rica to San Jose has security screenings or a train going from London to Paris had security screenings?
> Look, we need to keep paying the expensive lease on this bear-repelling rock because even though it demonstrably hasn't repelled the actual bears we've encountered, if we didn't have it there might have been thousands of bears, possibly trillions
Because terrorism doesn’t exist anymore and everyone loves America?
> How about this one: How many of them require it to be a government agency? Even in a lot of Europe it's private.
So now you went from “other countries have airports where security isn’t the same” to “it’s private”. What difference does it make?
FWIW: Airports can choose to have private security instead of TSA. The only one that does of any note is SFO.
Even if it is private in the EU, they still follow EU wide security regulations. How does it being private make any difference in your experience?
And even o
> Let's get rid of that too then.
So every single commercial airport in the world has screenings, as well as some domestic foreign train systems (Ibe only been on one internationally) as well as private high speed rail in the US where it isn’t required by law.
Nobody said they successfully pressured everyone about everything. But they do it a some and it doesn't do nothing, unfortunately. There are many countries still now requiring ineffective nonsense they didn't require before 9/11.
> They already see it as dangerous and for poor people
It seems like your argument is that we should needlessly harass middle class airline passengers but not poor people riding mass transit because nobody cares about poor people, but that seems like a bad idea for not just one but both reasons.
> Most bribes are for drugs and other contraband. Have you ever in the past 20 years heard of a case where someone bribed an official to bring a weapon on board a plane that was used to take over or bomb a plane?
Of course not, because the TSA is completely pointless so you don't have to bribe anyone. When someone wants to do that (e.g. shoe bomber) they just go right through without having to pay a bribe, and then they get stopped by passengers or crew.
> why does every major airport in every country have the same procedures?
To begin with, they don't. Moreover, even the original cargo cults were about planes.
> If people started bombing trains. You would see even less ridership from people who had alternatives.
But that was my point. If we cared about any of this and it was actually effective (which it isn't) then it doesn't make sense to do it for planes but not hotels and trains and everything else.
And we can clearly see that not doing it for anything other than planes hasn't resulted in an epidemic of bombings in the US for everything that isn't an aircraft, so why are we still wasting resources and troubling people by doing it for planes?