this is it folks. this is really happening. one word. "stockpile".

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at September 22, 2007 6:18 PM

The photo if real, or not is terribly ironic.

Kind of feels like the fox carefully checking out the chickens as they go into the chicken coop.

HMMM---What about that fox in line with the chickens??

Search everybody no matter what their religion requires ,Seikes,nuns,priests,cowboy hats,burkas,Jewish yamakas, Hindus, Hawaiian Moo Moos,mothers with babies.false legs,false arms and hands,absolutley no exceptions--yes an even that little old lady from Pasadena.

No exceptions whatsoever.PERIOD!!!

Posted by: Mackie at September 22, 2007 6:30 PM

Well that figures, in America we need to monitor those tricky nuns, we need to pat down everyone to ensure that the Jihadi's feelings don't get hurt...

Wouldn't want to profile or anything... wink wink..

I think we should allow a Jihadi only air line.. every flight escorted by a couple f-16's of course, at least that way there would be no hard feelings...no searches, no screening just board and fly,

Posted by: Robert at September 22, 2007 6:46 PM

So, this is Bush's idea for "War on Terror" and “Region of Peace”tm translates in to action.
Now just republish Bush smooching with that Saudi Prince again and we will have the entire campaign plan in photos.

Posted by: senor doeboy at September 22, 2007 6:47 PM

Hmm, did anyone SEARCH under Hijab & Nun's Headress...?

Posted by: Morgane at September 22, 2007 6:49 PM

Definitely a Planet Of The Apes moment.
The world has turned upside down.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at September 22, 2007 6:55 PM

Welcome to political correctness...spread misery equally instead of using common sense-the very element that political correctness is completely devoid of.

Despicable...but also typical.

We get what we tolerate.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 6:55 PM

What's with the funky looking blue helmet the security guard has on? Is that an official part of the uniform? Jeez, I hope not. She looks like a Teletubby.

Posted by: Prickzilla at September 22, 2007 7:01 PM

I KNEW it! All those anti-papist Chick Tracts are true! Evil Catholics.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at September 22, 2007 7:04 PM

Welcome to political correctness...spread misery equally instead of using common sense-the very element that political correctness is completely devoid of. Posted by: jcom972

Exactly.

Posted by: Josephine at September 22, 2007 7:09 PM

Sorry, I mistakenly left out the quotation marks in my comment.

Posted by: Josephine at September 22, 2007 7:17 PM

Can anyone help this lady who works for an international security company as aviation security agent at a UK airport bring her husband over from Pakistan?

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=17486

Posted by: tamil at September 22, 2007 7:27 PM

I see nothing wrong with this photo. I see a muslim on her knees before a Christian. Send this photo out to the muslim world and watch a riot form.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at September 22, 2007 7:28 PM

While "common sense" seems to indicate
profiling is a good idea, alas, the
science indicates otherwise:

"Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for defeating the CAPSS"
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm

In a nutshell, the adversary learns your profile,
or otherwise selects "clean" agents doing by
dry runs.

But the photo is rich with irony anyway.

ocelot

Posted by: Ocelot at September 22, 2007 7:31 PM

Re; Hijabbed security guard frisks nun (thanks to all who sent this in).

Sick.

Posted by: Frank at September 22, 2007 7:35 PM

"science indicates otherwise"??????
LMAO

Tell that to El Al Airlines!
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 7:39 PM

Leave it to the Feds to hire a hijab wearing Muslim female for airline security. Whats next Saracen airmarshals?

Posted by: waltc at September 22, 2007 7:51 PM

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever witnessed.
Guess what? We ARE going to get hit hard, and the government won't have an excuse.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 22, 2007 8:09 PM

Hell's bells, ask any 2nd grader how to stop terrorists from hi-jacking a plane and they would know.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 22, 2007 8:11 PM

It's detroitistan, right next to dearbornistan...what else is new? lol

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 8:14 PM

Perhaps the finest example I have ever seen proving the assertion that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted by: Wellington at September 22, 2007 8:14 PM

1/Francis HB Ingall - ‘The Last of the Bengal lancers’ concerning invasion of Kashmir in 1947.

"The massed tribesmen surged into Kashmir and could have reached the capital, Srinagar, with virtually no opposition; but they paused to sack the town of Baramulla and rape and kill the nuns in a convent there."

But is it true?
The Pakistani army was using the tribesman as a front: they massacred a few of the staff and patients but were called to order by a regular officer before they could rape or kill any nuns according to a Pakistani writer. [ and this would have occasioned a militarily significant delay?]

In ‘Freedom at midnight’ is the passage:

“the "Tribesmen" would have achieved the task of getting Kashmir had they not succumbed to mankind’s most cardinal weakness. They stopped to have some fun (Actually Rape/Pillage) at the missionary. Most of the nuns died. According to the book India should be indebted to the nuns of the missionary for sacrificing their lives due to which the Indian Army had enough time to land in Srinagar and drive the intruders back.
They seem to have killed 4 nuns, 2 female patients and a guy before a Pathan officer called them off."

2/Sept 2006 Danish artoon rage
MOGADISHU, Somalia - An Italian nun was fatally shot Sunday at the Somali hospital where she worked, eyewitnesses said.

The nun, who was not immediately identified, was shot at the entrance to S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu by two gunmen armed with pistols, said Mohamed Yusuf, a doctor at the facility, which serves mothers and children.

"The nun was shot in the back," Yusuf said. "She died of her injuries."

3/Gibbon-Decline and Fall, ch 56

"It was the amusement of the Saracens to profane, as well as to pillage, the monasteries and churches. At the siege of Salerno, a Mussulman chief spread his couch on the communion-table, and on that altar sacrificed each night the virginity of a Christian nun."

And these are just examples off the top of my head.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 22, 2007 8:21 PM

Yep...classic case-in-point how political correctness has replaced its complete & absolute opposite, common sense.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 8:22 PM

This is a really good argument for traveling with a small dog!

Would it also help if you told the hijabbed woman that you had just had bacon and eggs for breakfast?

Seriously,,it's disgusting, and one of the reasons I haven't been to the States for a while: the airport routine is a pain in the neck. Yes,,I know it is necessary.
( I have already given up wearing underwired bras, as they used to frisk me if I did,lol!)

Recently, no link, I saw a story where arabs going through Ben Gurion airport were complaining about the security: it never occurred to them it was the fault of their 'brothers'.

No point in racial profiling either. Too many converts, and also Chechniyans etc to contend with.

Posted by: Gramfan at September 22, 2007 8:28 PM

jcom972:

El Al screens a random selection of...
100% of its passengers, as in real
not-security-theater individual interviews.

They famously subject 100% of luggage
to a decompression test.

Maybe they profile, too, but the engine of
their outstanding record is attention to
100% of their carriage 100% of the time.

ocelot

Posted by: Ocelot at September 22, 2007 8:34 PM

No maybe about it...and they don't randomize anyone, they check 100$ of EVERYONE,
AND their bags 100%, thoroughly...and they profile all of them, too...100%
That's why their anti-terror record in that department since it's been implemented is 100%.
I know...saw it first hand, both as a traveller, and as military exchange training, both there...and here.

I trust folks like that via experience and practicality than some bean-counter "study" from a college using algorithms. They're ok for generalisms, but not for real-world settings like this.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 8:44 PM

A Muslim Women on her Knees befor a Catholic Nun.

Priceless.

No doubt this Pious Nun was saying a Prayer of Forgiveness.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 22, 2007 9:07 PM

Have suffered through nine years of Catholic education I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that nuns are evil. I know of two who were definitely minions of Satan.

I also know that nuns do not blow up or hijack airplanes.

The hijabbed guard would scare me more than the nun. She wouldn't have forty years ago, but times and perceptions change.

Posted by: USBeast at September 22, 2007 9:07 PM

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury…

Attributed to Alexander Tytler, 1787

The unsustainable is never sustained. It’s just a question of how it breaks. Economics are boring. Pardon the rambling in advance.

When a democracy degenerates to the point where an immigrant who is on welfare and who can’t find his country on a map is granted equal political status as a small business owner, working hundred hour weeks and paying over half of his income to the government, the democracy can officially be declared ‘late-stage’. Here’s my failure theory:

There were 168,000 foreclosures in July and 244,000 foreclosures in August. The September number will probably be higher still. People are still building houses out of inertia and economic situation. If you look back at the ‘booming’ 1990s, there were usually 100,000 homes built every month. So the housing supply is spiking.

At the same time, reactionary lending practices have caused demand to drop sharply. More supply, less demand, prices will continue to go down. The reality is that, for every one of the ‘sub-prime’ mortgages, there were multiple ‘investor’ mortgages. I’ll guess 6:1. Many of these investors had little equity and their business plan was to collect rent to cover most of the mortgage, and make their money on real estate appreciation, which would be 10%+ forever.

An investor, sitting on an asset worth $150k in the marketplace, with a $225k mortgage, will allow the lender to foreclose. The lender will then eat the better part of six figures. Say there are a quarter million foreclosures monthly (there are) and the lender eats $75k per foreclosure. That puts my calculator into exponent mode, but I think it works out to $19 billion per month of lender hemorrhaging. Hello English banking problems. The $2 billion that Bank of America ‘invested’ in Countrywide is chump change, probably for appearances, after an arm-twist by Paulson.

The Fed is trying to manage this by printing money. That explains why gold jumped from $650 to $735 in the last few weeks. De-valuing the dollar helps the Federal government pay off its old debt ($9 trillion on a cash basis, $70 trillion on accrual basis).

But borrowing new money becomes expensive because lenders will be wary about the ‘full faith and credit of the United States of America’ (which, by the way, Paulson says will disappear in any case on Oct 1st unless Congress lifts the debt limit).

Without the ability to borrow money, it gets really hard to fund the fifty percent plus of the American population that relies on the Federal government for a significant percentage of their income. It gets hard to speculate what happens at this point.

But I predict that middle-aged nuns will no longer get patted down by Muslims at the airport.

Posted by: pez at September 22, 2007 9:13 PM

jcom972:

The question the MIT paper
addresses is, given that we have resources
to extensively screen 8% of passengers,
and we have an adaptive adversary,
how should we choose that 8%?

Section 5.2 specifically addresses El Al's
success: namely, El Al rejects the premise
of resource limitation, and goes for 100%.

There's no great revelation in the
MIT paper, for someone who understands
basic statistics, yet the authors wrote it
out in a lucid way that ought to get the
attention of someone who does not appreciate
the power of statistics.

Put more simply, if we fail to adopt El Al's
100% approach, and we cease screening
elderly nuns, then the adversary will find
an elderly nun look-alike for its next
mission.

Scientific Conclusion. We must either adopt
the 100% approach, or randomly select the
group for higher level screening.

Political Conclusion. We ain't likely to
go for El Al's quality, because we're
(collectively) too cheap, so we should go
for random, because it's our best hope.
(Yes, we still get to act on particularized
suspicion, too. Got that, flying Imam sextet?)

ocelot

Posted by: Ocelot at September 22, 2007 9:16 PM

"Have suffered through nine years of Catholic education I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that nuns are evil. I know of two who were definitely minions of Satan"....LOL!!!!

Posted by: champ at September 22, 2007 9:24 PM

Maybe next time she'll wear a non-metal chastity belt.

Posted by: champ at September 22, 2007 9:26 PM

Champ,

Could it be that we both knew Sister Da...no, I will not invoke her name.

Posted by: USBeast at September 22, 2007 9:31 PM

Hrrrmmmm, if I was the nun, I would be wearing Pork and Dog Perfume (and make sure the Security Guards know that).

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at September 22, 2007 9:32 PM

Oh, I also forgot they also use more common sense, so the screening of an elderly nun will take a lot less time than screening one worth profiling, like a mOslem.

By the way, only thing that came up in the link you provided was this:
"Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System" against a white screen, with no further linkage afterwards...you may want to check it out.
But I don't even need it anyway...especially if it came from a "student paper" or a "carnival booth".

I didn't say or suggest it had to be 100% one way or the other (though it may have been taken as such, but I'm understanding on that one-it's not my take)...

As I said, they're ok for generalisms, but real-world applications they almost never work according to expectations (depending on the subject and the respective parameters)...
...ya see, I've also had experiences with such statistical jargon (some makes sense, some makes none...and MIT, home of the obl-revered noam chomsky, has far less a good reputation than it used to)...the most significant one was fall of 1983, the diplo corps used such practices, and they overruled our frantic and adamant screams that our embassy was a target waiting to be hit, based on real-world application parameters the "bean counters" simply didn't, or couldn't (actually they refused) to comprehend...we were overruled, and relieved from the zone.
Two weeks later, we saw the results of those "statistics"...so did hundreds of my brethren who had no clue what hit them, who hit, them, or even why.

But that aside...I wouldn't put faith in such studies, especially from certain sources, and it doesn't cost anything to concentrate priorities on where it's needed, and less on where it's not.
I prefer common sense real-world applications over statistics any day...especially when the source (if the listed link is what it says) a "student paper" or a "carnival booth".

I'm still alive because of it...and profiling, or at least concentrating on most likelies, instead of nuns, Grandma Jones, and Larry the Cable Guy- that will more than offset that hypothetical "8%".

I still give you an A for effort though.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 9:41 PM

I see nothing wrong with this photo. I see a muslim on her knees before a Christian. Send this photo out to the muslim world and watch a riot form.
Posted by: jihadwatcher

Exactly...you beat me to that one...that's what I get for coming in late...lol

Posted by: duh_swami at September 22, 2007 9:44 PM

lol swami & jw'er
it does have its humor, doesn't it.

I get rid of them really quick...carry a older model football in your carry-on...it's made from pigskin-they leave you alone...fast.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 9:51 PM

Alot of posters here blame this on President Bush, the problem lies with Americans. There was a time in the past when this crap would not have been tolerated, now most accept this crap as the norn. We have muslims whom show no alliegence to America guarding our airports. We have mexicans who have no desire to be Americans, but reap all our benefits that they can get. And we have a full flegded terrorist speeking to our collage students. How much longer befor the shit hits the fan.

Posted by: AMartinez at September 22, 2007 10:10 PM

As an Israeli who was in the States when 9/11 happened and flew within the US after 9/11 before coming home, I'll say this typifies the difference between OUR approach to fighting terrorists and the Americans' approach. Americans look for weapons, or explosives; Israelis look for terrorists.

For example, when I flew from Boston to Chicago the first week flights were up again after 9/11, the only security personnel I saw were those at the scanners. There just WEREN'T others about.

When I flew home looking thoroughly American, I'd not been in the terminal FIVE MINUTES before a pair of plain-clothes security guards posing as a young couple questioned me. Granted, they tried to pass it off as conversation but we're so used to that here on the buses and everywhere else that you just KNOW it's security. Still, without seeming to do so, the security here manages to interview EVERYBODY before they get in line and then to single out for closer inspection anybody who reacts the wrong way AT ALL. Of course they still do the same kind of checks the Americans do too but even THERE Israelis ask questions. Americans just look bored at the checks and don't do ANYTHING beyond making a show.

I wish Americans well and hope they never face another attack, but I DON'T trust America's security at airports or anywhere else.

Posted by: MosheC at September 22, 2007 10:11 PM

"Americans look for weapons....Israelis look for terrorists." MosheC

Thank you for that comment. Would that all of America, including our security forces, take it to heart. But the twin insanities of political correctness and multiculturalism prevent the sane Israeli approach being implemented here in America, at least for the present.

Posted by: Wellington at September 22, 2007 10:23 PM

"I will not invoke her name"....funny!

Posted by: champ at September 22, 2007 10:37 PM

AMartinez...BULLSEYE, it's because of the results of OVER tolerance, and political correctness instead of common sense.

MosheC...dittos! Our priorities are completely asshole backwards, and again, because of political correctness instead of common sense.

Kudos to both...ya nailed it dead to rights...
nuf sed.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 22, 2007 10:51 PM

As absurd as the sitation shown in this photo is.. there ARE plenty of "Christian" sympathizers with terrorism. You know.. the kind that let illegals stay inside their "sanctuary" churches..

If I were a TSA agent i would definitely search Dhimmy Quatar if he crossed my path.

And Nancy Pelosi.. and Hitlery.. and John Kerry.. and Jack Murtha... and Dick Turban.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 22, 2007 11:29 PM

TSA Warns of Terrorist Dry Runs
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/tsa_warns_of_te.html

"The cheese and clay are stand-ins for plastic explosive. And honestly, I don't care if someone is carrying a water bottle, wearing a head scarf, or buying a one-way ticket, but if someone has a block of cheese with wires and a detonator -- I want the FBI to be called in.

Note that profiling didn't seem to help here. Three of the incidents involved U.S. persons, and one is unspecified."

jcom972: I checked the link at MIT.
Try scrolling down.

The carnival booth attack is so named because,
like a carnival booth, the TSA invites all
comers to "step right up" and play their game.
After a few innocent test flights, our aspiring
shahids know who triggers the profile. It isn't
bean counting. And Chomsky has no more to do
with it than he does with MIT-Lincoln Labs.

Whoever comes up clean gets the chance to try
for the 72 raisins.

ocelot

Posted by: Ocelot at September 22, 2007 11:54 PM

Makes you feel kind of....raped! Just looking at the picture.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 23, 2007 12:04 AM

I think the absurdity here isn't that a nun is being screened, but that a Muslim is part of the security staff. As soon as one can devise a reliable test for checking whether a particular Muslim does not now, and will not in the future, harbor a desire to aid the war against the unbelievers, then by all means let's have Muslim security staff. Until then, any Muslim is an unacceptable hole in our security waiting to be exploited (if not already being exploited). Letting a bomb on a plane isn't even the most valuable use of such assets; much more valuable is expediting the movement of contraband and people for attacks elsewhere. That way you can leave your people in place because they have deniability.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at September 23, 2007 12:17 AM

WATCH OUT!!! SHE'S CARRYING A BIBLE!!!!

Posted by: Terrahawk at September 23, 2007 12:39 AM

Allahfanculo -

Sanctuary is absolute - we have no choice. That it is abused we know, but since when was that a good reason for compromising our Faith and altering and denying our God-given ways?

The Sanctuary before the Altar and the Host is inviolate and absolute - the governance of that Sanctuary and the rights, or otherwise, of those people who seek to use it is up to those who have control, temporal and spiritual, of any particular Sanctuary. Assuming that those in control of any particular Sanctuary are well-meaning and professed Christians then the rest of we Christians have to support them - at least at first and until a proper and sane enquiry can be undertaken.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 23, 2007 1:05 AM

This photo says a great deal about the impact Islam has already had on our country. Though still a realitively small minority in the United States, we're already altering our behavior in response to their presence amongst us. Searching a Nun at an airport would have been considered extremely bad taste, and no one would have thought in terms of someone disguising themselves as a Nun in order to blow an airliner out of the sky.

We have come to the point of predicating our behavior on the uncivilized behavior of a people who will stoop to any crime in the name of their unnatural, and immoral, religious beliefs.

We shouldn't have to live like this, and we wouldn't have too if it weren't for the short-sightedness of people who are supposed to be our leaders.

If we're already altering our behavior for the the small number of Muslims in our country today, what will it be like in 20 years from now, after we've imported several million more Muslims into our country?

Posted by: rational at September 23, 2007 1:06 AM

Allahfanculo -

We know, of course, that the Christian attitude towards the granting of sanctuary in the Sanctuary will sometimes render us the korbanot upon our own Altars. That cannot be helped. The granting of sanctuary in the Sanctuary to all who ask is a Christian duty but the granting of sanctuary is a temporary state and must, and does, lead to 'enquiry' and 'determination'. It is those latter states that you seem to be ignorant about and, in your ignorance, you seem to be too ready to condemn, and to sacrifice we Christians upon our own Altars.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 23, 2007 1:20 AM

chomsky aside...

Ever played IBMs "Big Blue"? (chess program).
I have...
How many do you know have ever beaten the machine?
By all intents and purposes, the program should at least win most all the time, and a human can expect stalemate after stalemate at best-but it is not unbeatable.
Well, can't speak for anyone else, but I'm one of them...on the highest complexity setting at that.
9-4-33...1st 4 times, I got my ass kicked, I don't mean beaten, I mean clock-cleaned, 0-4...so I regrouped, and studied the logic circuits of said program, and realized there was a flaw in the logic-the assumption of pure logic, no flexibility at all. So I hit it with illogic and bewilderment, constantly changing tactics to prevent it from adjusting and adapting...the rest is history.
The point here so far...we've put too much reliance on machines to do our calculations for us, often reaching less-than-ideal stats more often than not.
Much like combat planning-we have Plan A, a Plan B, and Plan "ah, shit!" in order of fallbacks. Know how many times Plan A succeeded in 25 years?
ZERO...Plan B?, 10%, the rest you can gather.
Plan A is based on sims, yes, "bean counting".
You get the idea...

Computer sims are fatally flawed...may as well use a nintendo sim for all the good it does, much like a flight sim, or combat sim, bears little, save special effects of real-life scenarios- historical experience, and knowing there's no substitute for real-world application, and here's why...

Sims use a programmed perspective of starting with zero risks initially, and add up factors to conclude no, maybe, or yes, on potential terror threats.

El Al, however (and admitted in the same study's footnotes, too), starts from the opposite end...
everyone is a potential threat, and eliminate each one by factors at hand by process of elimination. It's much more efficient, and thorough...

That's why I don't trust studies...it also, even more so, depends on who's programming the sim for study (hence, my & my peers` reluctance to give much weight to certain segments who've come up with equally flawed sims/studies/statistics in the past). The only thing they provide worth any weight is a general overview, but that's about it- they can't possibly figure in all factors, some of which turn out to be surprisingly simple, like the proverbial "duck" adage, which, much to some of our bewilderment, goes completely overlooked at times, and more often than not in these circumstances...mainly because of predisposition.

Yes, TSA is as useless as tits on a boar hog, we know that already...and only catch them by accident.
Asking the wolf to guard the henhouse is even more flawed...and suicidal (see pic above)...

...and beyond all this, with which we can speak until we're blue in the face, comes what we in the US call "the $64,000 question":

Being since the two sets of parameters are worlds apart...
Are you willing to bet your life on (as I said above)
1) practices based on stats/studies by a sim program(?)...
2) or real-world experience where common sense is used over political correctness, proven to be 100%, and includes the apparently scorned-but-effective practice of profiling?

I choose real-world common sense any day, and will stake my life on it, and already have (lest I wouldn't be here at all)...because "bean counter" machines/statisticians cannot calculate human factors...real world common sense does-and it's much cheaper than one would think,especially given what the price to pay would be when, not if, present procedures fail...because they are a failure waiting to happen.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 23, 2007 1:20 AM

The obvious solution to airport security is to have everyone fly nude. It will greatly speed up searches and put an end to disputes about wearing hijab. It may also cut down on air travel by nuns, but that's the price we have to pay.

Posted by: billposer at September 23, 2007 3:47 AM

"Of course there should be random searches, and no one should be exempt -- if any group is exempt, its dress will soon be adopted by the terrorists."

Sure searches are useful. And muslims in TSA is dangerous, counterproductive, insane and suicidal.

BTW there is a rather simple cure - fly private: no problem to have everybody on board armed and ALL followers of certain murderous, perverse cult banned from your airplane. Completely and unconditionally banned.

Posted by: Excommie at September 23, 2007 4:49 AM

Great idea, but highly doubtful very many can afford to fly a private jet...then again, let everyone go armed on commercial planes like before they banned weapons...they'll be outgunned, and NObody will let ANYone near that cockpit, or let someone light a shoe bomb, or anything else like that...
(only exception/restriction is obvious-no alcohol while armed)...(I'd feel safer with a planeload of armed passengers than an unarmed bunch of captive targets-waiting-to-happen like they are now)
...and that can be done on the cheap, VERY cheap, as in FREE.
Only thing left from there is scan for chemicals, explosives, etc.

Too bad that won't happen...too much infestation of political correctness instead of common sense.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 23, 2007 7:05 AM

Hey CAIR are you watching? Every person gets searched so don't go crying foul. This is what Islamic terrorism has made. Don't like it, tough.

Posted by: herself at September 23, 2007 7:15 AM

OliverPCamford posted:

"Allahfanculo -

Sanctuary is absolute - we have no choice. That it is abused we know, but since when was that a good reason for compromising our Faith and altering and denying our God-given ways?

The Sanctuary before the Altar and the Host is inviolate and absolute - the governance of that Sanctuary and the rights, or otherwise, of those people who seek to use it is up to those who have control, temporal and spiritual, of any particular Sanctuary. Assuming that those in control of any particular Sanctuary are well-meaning and professed Christians then the rest of we Christians have to support them - at least at first and until a proper and sane enquiry can be undertaken."

Admittedly, as a non-Christian, I do not know the Christian concept of "sanctuary" except through literature. [It didn't work out so well for Quasimodo etc.] Still, two questions:

1. Life IS sacred but G-d entrusts each person to protect their own life FIRST. Thus, it is a good deed to save one's own life by killing a man who is then trying to murder one. Helping others is fine and good but the US gov't's first obligation must be to protect US citizens. If giving "sanctuary" endangers American lives, the US gov't is morally obliged NOT to give it.

2. Even if you reject this for yourself, OliverPCamford, which you have the right to do whether I think it foolish or not, how do you have the right to reject for other people in the US?

Posted by: MosheC at September 23, 2007 7:16 AM

It's a muslim, muslim, muslim world. When is the infidel going to do something about it?

Posted by: David England at September 23, 2007 7:37 AM

100% security checks on people and baggage would eliminate those "Flying Imans" type of frivolous lawsuits.....it would slow down the passenger processing times and it would irritate most people....but until Muslm terror threats decline, the security checks would be mandatory...and I see no decline in Muslim terror threats...only increases.....

...besides a Bible, Most NUNS carry a rosary with a Christian cross on it.....I guess the Nun could hold it up it a fashion reminiscent of a bad vampire flick...."Get back! I tell you, Get back!""".

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 23, 2007 10:32 AM

...hmmmm, I was thinking about saying something about checking to see if FGM has been performed , but I won't....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 23, 2007 11:42 AM

NEWSBREAK; "Nunrage Protests Take Over Vatican"
Catholics worldwide violently protested the photo of a nun being frisked by a hijabed airport security personel. "All she wanted to do is fly in peace, without being discriminated against." Claimed a unnamed spokesperson for the Council of All Catholic Americans (C.A.C.A.)

Posted by: americanmadestrat at September 23, 2007 12:36 PM

The only thing missing from the background of this photo is the "youth" wearing a heavy winter coat on a hot summer's day (and with various wires and batteries hanging out) being waved through the checkpoint by another hijabbed TSA worker. A nondescript businessman is pointing and complaining, and therefore being arrested, hogtied, and dragged away by police.

Posted by: special_guest at September 23, 2007 1:28 PM

A hijabed Muslim, therefore observant, frisking a Nun in an American airport. What mosque does she attend? At the back of it, where the women are allowed, what kind of preaching does she listen to? From what countries does the Islamic literature she reads come? Saudi? What attitudes do the men in her family have about Islamic supremicism?

So, basically the person perhaps a thousand times more likely to actually be involved in Islamic terrorism is frisking a catholic nun who, to my knowledge, have had no participation in jihad violence ever in history.

OK. What was the justification for continuing the war again? "We're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so... they can screen our airport security here." Is that how it went?

Posted by: sci_ at September 23, 2007 1:55 PM

Seems like a Test-Run to me , everyone gets used to Nuns being "Alleged" suicide bombers and hijacker Pilots to slaughter civilians to be frisked just like all the rest of the non-Muslim terrorists .

Except.....there is now a Jihadists mole in the Security check area and when the Muslim in a Nun's outfit with the SemTex belt gets the OK by Hijab-Jane to board the Plane knowing nobody will alert Ailine staff after the Flying Imam lawsuit which was CAIR's new "Financial-Jihad" to silence people.

Oddy thought , Mr.Hooper is saying that if you think you know something about a plot to bomb a Mosque but if your wrong you can be ruined financially in the Courts , the CAIR "Know your rights" book advises that you do not have to report any of this knowledge without a Lawyer present and Police need a search warrant to enter your home.

Keep this in mind Mr.Hooper when Mosques start to be blown up and yet not one witness saw anything just like all of those bogus Islamophobia claims with few arrests or even one witness of a vandalism to a Mosque.
If you keep calling white christians and jews racists bigots and islamophobes that are behind all the current vandalism with no arrests, you will mere "Incite" people to be vandals since you blame them anyway.

Posted by: ala-sux at September 23, 2007 3:09 PM

Bush looks at this photo and says why not a judge? Why not a B-1 bomber crew?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 23, 2007 6:55 PM

Unbelievable.

If one picture captures the foolishness of this blind 'war on terror' this is it.

If this picture is not a fake, it is invaluable.

(great work jihadwatch)

Posted by: dgene at September 23, 2007 8:48 PM