Take about 60 seconds to think about how, if you were a terrorist tasked with blowing up an airplane, you would do it. Do you really think the TSA would stop you? And if they did, would you really get fewer virgins if you had to use your Plan B of blowing up the security checkpoint with maybe 100 people and a couple dozen federal employees, instead of your intended target?
Or, attack some softer target. And I just love how my post was modded down, no rebuttal because everyone hates the TSA. My assertion still stands, it's far more reasonable to conclude that terrorists have moved on to other targets, as we saw in Kenya, because they have no security and rarely have any armed capability even near by to respond.
No doubt attacking the security line at the airport is a soft target, but no mo where near as soft as a mall. An airport may detect the attacker on the way to the line, you still have to buy a ticket. A mall, no chance. Are the lines a security risk? You bet, it's why I'm glad my GOES account keeps me out of them and thru the quick TSA-Pre line.
But hey, this is all blasphemy anyway, the TSA sucks, Al Qaeda was defeated, and the government desperately wants to keep lying to you so they can look at the outline of someone's body.
But that's the point, the only significant 'hardening' of airliners as potential targets has been by armoring the cockpit doors and the awareness of the passengers, the porno-scanners are meaningless in that regard.
And the justifications previously offered for said porno-scanners have turned out to be bogus. The plots mentioned that were disrupted were disrupted by other means such as sigint and humint. So why not continue to invest in the means and methods that work, and cut from the budget the ones that never did?
