Kid checked out 3 times for possibly being a Terrorist

[stan18]

Wow you guys, this thread makes me want to cry

 

 

 

This kid got inspected because he shared a name. Don't give any its possible that he could be a terrorist bull crap, sharing a name has NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Why does sharing a name automatically involve possible guilt? What, so a no name terrorist blowing up a plane would place less guilt on security, just because he DOESN'T share a name with another terrorist?

 

 

 

Nightsword, your placing the blame on the kid by using your "situation" means nothing. What if the 30 year old person DIDN'T share a name? What, then its fine? They didn't have to check him three times because he doesn't share a name with a big name terrorist? Security would feel less guilty if that no name terrorist blew up a plane? "Its not our fault, he didn't share a name with a big name terrorist"

 

 

 

 

 

Its not fair to the kid, or anyone else who shares a name with someone infamous, to put extra possible guilt on him.

[Gilformen]

I can also copy paste links, without input for discussion

 

 

 

wow, i laughed irl...

 

 

 

on topic...

 

 

 

heh, with political correctness the way it is, they cant just go around frisking guys in their 20's that look arabic. the ACLU would swarm.

[Tigra00]

I can't believe some of you guys actually think they did the correct thing. He was seven, only reason he got stopped is he shared the same name as someone who was much older.

 

 

 

Really, get some common sense here.

 

 

 

Common sense? How about you get some. Lets flip the story a little, to something that could happen just like this did. Lets say instead of being 7, it was a 30yr old. And instead of getting flagged because he had the same name of a confirmed terrorist, they let him thru. He then blows something up and kills hundreds of people. Would you justify those peoples deaths because its common sense to not stop someone and check them out?

 

 

 

The only thing that was wrong was him not getting cleared the last 2 times. But that just makes me feel that much better about homeland security. Id rather it be overworking, then not working at all. Now that is common sense.

 

 

 

You're a [developmentally delayed]. The entire point is that he WAS 7 years old. They should have took one look at the kid, went "Huh. Well, obviously you share the same name with someone else!" and let him go on his merry way. Do you know how many Muslims are named Muhammed-something or something-Muhammed? Like, all of them. Some are terrorists, some are 7 year old boys wanting to go to [bleep]ing Disney World.

 

 

 

As if stopping him and making him cry wasn't bad enough, Disney World is also a [cabbage]-hole of a place. Poor kid.

[warren211]

well, I suppose they couldn't just allow someone with the terrorist name to waltz into a plane. Its not unheard of for kids to become suicide bombers. I've seen a CNN report showing how Iraq is training 5 year olds to become soldiers and showing them they should become a martyr-- Kill themselves in order to take Jews with them. But still, one security check was enough. but on the return trip, they still had issues?

[Erk02]

i dont see whats wrong with it? they couldve had bombs attached to them or anything..

 

 

 

Not neccesarily.

 

 

 

Think about it. If he already had bombs attached to him before he got to the airport, then he could of easily blown himself up first in the lobby without going through all those crazy checks, killing tons of innocent people.

 

 

 

There probably wouldn't really be a reason to do blow yourself up with a bomb on a plane when you got tons of people just happily waiting to be blown to bits.

 

 

 

Even if that was not possible, then you got the airport parkin lot.

 

 

 

~Ice~

Then why do we have airport security? :roll:

[m4tty]

whats a worse mistake?

 

1) thinking someone is a terrorist and them not being one.

 

2) thinking someone isnt a terrorist but they are and thousands of innocent people die.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

whats a worse mistake?

 

1) thinking someone is a terrorist and them not being one.

 

2) thinking someone isnt a terrorist but they are and thousands of innocent people die.

 

Neither. The worst mistake is that they harassed a little boy.

[wild_goat_14]

whats a worse mistake?

 

1) thinking someone is a terrorist and them not being one.

 

2) thinking someone isnt a terrorist but they are and thousands of innocent people die.

 

Neither. The worst mistake is that they harassed a little boy.

 

 

 

Oh yes, so that little boy's trip is more important that 1,000 lives would have been?

 

 

 

[wagon].

[yomom1919]

 

 

 

Not neccesarily.

 

 

 

Think about it. If he already had bombs attached to him before he got to the airport, then he could of easily blown himself up first in the lobby without going through all those crazy checks, killing tons of innocent people.

 

 

 

There probably wouldn't really be a reason to do blow yourself up with a bomb on a plane when you got tons of people just happily waiting to be blown to bits.

 

 

 

Even if that was not possible, then you got the airport parkin lot.

 

 

 

~Ice~

Then why do we have airport security? :roll:

 

 

 

To protect people from blowing up actual planes or hijacking planes and using them as missiles, such as in 9/11.

 

 

 

and @ defender, its alot harder to do in america then you think.. if it was that easy to accomplish, why dont we see terrorists running in times square with bombs strapped to them or massive car bombings in the USA. It's only easy over there because, quite frankly, they all suck at security.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

whats a worse mistake?

 

1) thinking someone is a terrorist and them not being one.

 

2) thinking someone isnt a terrorist but they are and thousands of innocent people die.

 

Neither. The worst mistake is that they harassed a little boy.

 

 

 

Oh yes, so that little boy's trip is more important that 1,000 lives would have been?

 

 

 

[wagon].

 

If that little boy had been white-colored, would you have thought of him as a potential terrorist?

[jackalope14]

I can see why they needed to look into it but couldnt they have done it a little quicker than they did? Especially considering his age?

[dwarfdude3]

er, This is not news. It is the media jabbing at your emotions to distract you from real issues. Its just a freaking mistake, it happens all the time, get over it. But the media has to whine on about how traumatizing the incident was for the family and crap. This is [cabbage]. Traumatizing stuff happens to families all over the world everyday, why don't they get news stories?

 

 

 

I bet the media would have been a lot happier if it turned out that they security people didn't check the kid because he was a kid, and it turned out someone had hidden a bomb in his shoe which consequently blew up his plane. Wow, think of all the emotions you could play on with that kind of story! It would be a field day! Time to rake in the big bucks!

 

 

 

kinda a lose-lose situation for the security people, they'd have been criticized for any action that they took.

[Saru Inc]

Wow, I'm a proud American, but these Americans are IDIOTS!! Can't they see that the kid is only 7? What a bunch of morons LOL.... I mean, they're putting in a bad word for us Americans/ :|

[happybappy]

He could have been in disguise. :-k

 

 

 

:roll: :wall: #-o

[Nanosauromo]

It's things like this that make me ashamed to be american. I'm living in a country of idiots.

[____]

Common sense much? Some officials are just idiots.

[BlueTear]

I'm reminded of the story of a couple who has in Iraq - pre-invasion, post-11th September - and had a baby. They named the baby Hussein something because this made the authorities easier to deal with. So, as soon as the toddler has grown enough to make the return trip whichever country the couple was actually living in - might have been Sweden - it turns out their toddler now shares the name with someone on the same watch list.

 

 

 

You find stopping a seven year old boy weird, imagine what the parents of said toddler thought...

[TotalTalker]

He looks quite innocent to me, but thats quite sad, and I suppose the airport is going to get quite a lot of grief from this :uhh:

[GrimHams]

It's things like this that make me ashamed to be american. I'm living in a country of idiots.

 

 

 

You'd be living in a country of idiots if they didnt take checking passengers seriously. They can check whoever the hell they like, they're trying to protect people like you who don't seem to want to draw a line on how intense checking any passenger is. I'd sure as hell rather the people at english airports checking me than if i got through without anyone being bothered. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If airport officials have their doubts about anyone then they have the right to check them as much as they like, its ludicrous people on this board who think the kid shouldn't have been checked.

[forsaken]

It's things like this that make me ashamed to be american. I'm living in a country of idiots.

 

 

 

You'd be living in a country of idiots if they didnt take checking passengers seriously. They can check whoever the hell they like, they're trying to protect people like you who don't seem to want to draw a line on how intense checking any passenger is. I'd sure as hell rather the people at english airports checking me than if i got through without anyone being bothered. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If airport officials have their doubts about anyone then they have the right to check them as much as they like, its ludicrous people on this board who think the kid shouldn't have been checked.

 

 

 

No one said he shouldn't be checked. The issue that was raised was that he was checked several times. Furthermore, it was on the basis that he might have been a 30 year old terrorist who shared the same name. How long, I ask you, does it take to recognise that a 7 year old is not 30 years old?

 

 

 

The question here does not lay within the need to check, but the inanity inherent in having to check if a boy, who clearly is a 7 year old boy, was a 30 year old terrorist.

 

 

 

Therein lies the issue, and thus the stupidity demarcated in the article.

[Faux]

That's what you get when your parents idolize a freedom fighter

 

 

 

/joke

[9Fade1]

oh no there was one yearv old child hijacking a plane in 9/11

 

 

 

honestly, why go with what a computer says over common sense,

 

 

 

 

 

when will we learn :shame: :shame:

[goldphishies]

American paranoia. Atleast they didn't put him in prison and torture him under the "suspicion" he might be a terrorist. ]=(

 

Dude. Just dude.

[Nadril]

I can't believe some of you guys actually think they did the correct thing. He was seven, only reason he got stopped is he shared the same name as someone who was much older.

 

 

 

Really, get some common sense here.

 

 

 

Common sense? How about you get some. Lets flip the story a little, to something that could happen just like this did. Lets say instead of being 7, it was a 30yr old. And instead of getting flagged because he had the same name of a confirmed terrorist, they let him thru. He then blows something up and kills hundreds of people. Would you justify those peoples deaths because its common sense to not stop someone and check them out?

 

 

 

The only thing that was wrong was him not getting cleared the last 2 times. But that just makes me feel that much better about homeland security. Id rather it be overworking, then not working at all. Now that is common sense.

 

 

 

Its kind of the point that he was SEVEN YEARS OLD.

 

 

 

 

 

Think about it, for a second. How is a seven year old a person already said to be a terrorist? He shared a name, hell they should have looked it up and seen when the person what said to be a terriost. Chances are the kid was probably 4 then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me this, now. They already go through extensive checking. Would you like it that everyone be pulled over "because they could be a terriost?" Would you like to halt the time it takes to get through an airport even more, even though we have more than adequate procedures already to look for bombs and dangerous objects?

 

 

 

 

 

Stopping a 7 year old because he is supposed to already be a terriost isn't "playing it safe", its stupid. I could understand if it was a 30 year old man because that is, well you know, possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So really, you guys who are trying to say this is right are taking it too far. I'm all for security, and I would much rather it be a [bleep] to get through an airport than for it to be unsecure but you have to have common sense at one point or another.

[Jaziek]

If i had a penny for every time i've seen this story on the net... well i'd have about 20 pence. But im still sick of it.