Re: TSA Scanners vs. Profiling Redux
"nicholas a. evans" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Firstly, I've read that even the manufacturers of these machines don't think they would have detected the underwear bomber. So where do they get "only reliable way" from? I think they meant to say "most lucrative to lobbyists way." Secondly, as Peter alluded to, I read that the underwear bomber was a sweaty nervous wreck. His fellow passengers were already suspicious of him. I have no doubt some questioning would have weeded him out. "The only way" is obtuse. Thirdly, the underwear bomber was a pathetic failure. His own father reported him prior to the incident, and he failed to injure anyone but himself. Why are we reacting to him in any ways other than comedians making fun of him and reinforcing the investigators who should have followed up on his father's report? -- Nick On Nov 24, 2010 8:37 PM, "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote: -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot