web analytics

BEWARE THE TODDLER TERRORISTS!

By Pete Moore On April 25th, 2012

It could have turned out very badly, but fortunately the TSA was on hand to protect national security.

When four year old Isabella Brademeyer hugged her grandmother, while going through security at Wichita Airport, the heroes of the TSA weren’t fooled: nan might have passed her a gun!

You can’t be too careful when national security is imperilled, so Isabella was isolated from her family and shouted at. An attempted pat down ended with the potentially dangerous suspect running off terrified (hey, these terrorists are trained to deceive). The TSA knew then they had their girl. They declared that Isabella was “a high-security-threat” and threatened to shut the airport if the citizen did not comply.

The mini Leila Khaled was taken to a side room where she carried on the act, but a TSA hero took control and eventually allowed the family to get their flight. Phew, you can’t be too careful.

35 Responses to “BEWARE THE TODDLER TERRORISTS!”

  1. Congratulations on another phony incident as cherry picked for the Ron Paul boobs.

    See Annie Murphy incident, which somehow you phonies have never commented on during all your complaints about the existence of airport security.

  2. The child and grandmother did not follow the rules. Therefore the TSA have to react as they’ve been trained even though they know the arm-chair quarterbacks will use the incident to ridicule them.

    The Irish especially don’t recognise that rules, however foolish, must be followed to the letter.

    Irish example of disregard of rules: Ah sure, we don’t park cars. We abandon them. I’ll only be a few minutes (parking on double lines). 3 hours later……

    The TSA are a necessary component of National security. There may be hundreds of incidents where the flying public believe they’ve gone too far. But the Terrorists only need ONE incident where they didn’t go far enough. Then watch the Liberals squawk, bleat and criticise!

  3. Yes, it is possible that she was passed a gun or knife but it is how this little girl was then treated that is a real cause for concern. Do any of these security organisations exercise a degree of common sense and sensitivity?

  4. Phantom, EDDIE –

    I see a hundred signs every day of how deeply infused we in Anglosphere are with State propaganda and of how detached we’ve become from a language, culture and life of liberty.

    You two have just provided another sign.

    In America, we see a State apparachik seperate a young child from her family, intimidate her, shout at her and cause her and her family great distress, and you two are not only cool with it, you think it was the right and justified thing to do.

    You and the retards in TSA uniforms are also a reminder of how tyrannies have always easily recruited foot soldiers to harrass, intimidate, boss about and inflict violence on those who displease the State.

    Get up off your knees you wimps. Try being men instead of cheerleaders for bullies.

  5. Do any of these security organisations exercise a degree of common sense and sensitivity?

    What about the Annie Murphy incident, boys? How come no comments about that? Falls outside the script?

    Years ago, I was passing through security at LaGuardia. A mother and her young daughter were just ahead of me. The daughter carried a doll that was precious to her.
    A doll that she couldn’t bring through the metal detector.

    The little girl didn’t want to put her doll on the conveyor belt for the scanner, thinking that it would be harmed. The girl was very upset. It broke the heart of everyone there, including the evil TSA agents.

    After a minute, the mom and a female TSA agent persuaded the girl to put the doll on the belt for a ” little ride “, and all was well.

    I know a lot of heavy travelers, from the US and Britain, and I don’t know a single one who has the mindless disdain for airport security that the Matt Drudge / Ron Paul dimwit brigade exhibit. I wish that we didn’t need it, but we do. I wish that all here spoke honestly about the matter, but they don’t.

  6. “Years ago…..female TSA agent…” When was the TSA started?

    The Annie Murphy case:

    http://www.shabak.gov.il/english/history/affairs/pages/anne-mariemurphycase.aspx

    – The plan was to plant explosives in the belly of the plane; the explosives were to be transported by a duped and innocent passenger entirely unaware of their existence.
    El Al security agents at the London stop uncovered the explosives and prevented the terror attack. After the discovery of the explosives, local authorities took over and arrested the passenger; later also arresting the man who sent her, a Jordanian Arab named Nizar Hindawi. –

    The lesson to be learnt is by western women – stay away from arab men. Apart from that, I’m sure that Phantom will provide a list of reasons as to why security which was good enough in 1986 now has to be supplemented by genital pat-downs.

    So, Phantom – why are genital pat-downs and full-body radiography needed today when the case you cite from 1986 was uncovered by the security measures then in place? Given that it was an El Al plane as the target, it would be extremely unlikely that security cameras would have failed.

  7. Phantom –

    You mean Anne-Marie Murphy?

    Those explosives were found, in a bag, sixteen years before the TSA was brought into existence. It’s hardly a persuasive case for the necessity of the TSA.

  8. The lesson from the Annie Murphy case is that anyone setting foot in the secure area of the airport needs to be seen as a potential terrorist or a potential dupe of a terrorist.

    Because if this is not done, terrorists will be more than happy to exploit the exception.

    This is the same as what is practiced in dentistry or medicine, which Matt would back me up on. All patients now, in situations where blood may be spilled, are treated as potential carriers of AIDS or other illnesses. Everyone. Including the 80 year old grandma and the 2 year old child.

    You learn from the situation and you adapt. Unless you’re a Ron Paul Talking Dummy.

  9. Wait for it, coming to a bus stop near you. Then the spreaders of TERROR have won.

    How is it that these uniformed thugs can’t get their heads around profiling. I’s good enough for the Israelis at Tel Aviv, which must be more of a juicy target than the US.

  10. Visit Israel sometime. You still go through metal detectors, etc there.

    But yes profiling is just flat out common sense as an overlay – while never forgetting that anyone can be the dupe of a terrorist.

    Every good cop or other security person probably still profiles, informally. You’d be a complete incompetent not to.

  11. Phantom – security is so good and has been so good for some time now that the only way for an explosive device to get onto a plane is if the CIA escorts the would-be perpetrator on-board or if security cameras dramatically fail as the would-be perpetrator passes through security, as happened with the shoe/underwear-bombers.

    Just as well we have genital patdowns otherwise we’d have the penis- and vagina-bombers.

  12. Enough of your fantasies, Allan.

  13. Interesting.

    The story broke after the girl’s mother wrote, on Facebook, about what the TSA put them through.

    “Facebook Zaps Story of TSA Child Abuse” reports Christopher Manion. It seems that Facebook removed a ‘like’ button before removing the piece entirely. Now would Facebook do that?!

  14. Phantom – fantasies?

    Fact – camera security failed as the shoe/underwear bombers passed through security to board the targetted planes.
    Fact – an eye-witness testified that he and his wife saw the underwear-bomber being escorted through security.
    Fact – there are now genital pat-downs at US airports when passengers refuse full-body radiation.

    Which do you dispute?

  15. Fact – an eye-witness testified that he and his wife saw the underwear-bomber being escorted through security

    An eyewitness in New Mexico saw flying saucers too.

    So I guess they exist too.

  16. Phantom – every time you are confronted directly with facts which challenge your opinions, you throw in idiotic diversions such as the one above. It is a fact that an eye-witness testified that he and his wife saw the underwear-bomber being escorted past security at Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam – that’s a fact.

    Your security apparatus has the slogan ‘see something, say something’. Well this guy saw something and said something but he obviously saw what he wasn’t meant to see.

  17. Well done to the TSA. They thwarted an attack by the penis-bomber!

    http://www.infowars.com/congressman-says-he-was-targeted-for-grope-down-by-tsa/

    – A US Congressman has claimed that he was assaulted during a TSA patdown and was then targeted for future patdowns by the TSA after complaining about the incident.

    Texas Rep. Francisco Canseco says he was inappropriately touched in private areas during a run in with the TSA earlier this month at San Antonio International Airport.

    One week later Canseco was again singled out by the TSA in the same airport and selected for a pat-down.

    “I did not see it as a coincidence,” he said. “I asked them why are you going to pat me down again, so we discussed it further and after discussing it further, they patted me down.”

    When Canseco refused to allow the agent to touch his private areas a second time, police officers were called to the scene. –

  18. Allan 613

    I saw the Loch Ness monster swim up the Hudson River one night after too many Budweiser tall boys.

  19. So even some tribunes of the people face the choice: be sexually assaulted or be arrested.

    No, such things are not inflicted on a free people.

  20. Comments on the Infowars site letting you know the audience

    meatnormous says:
    April 25, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    Somebody ought to punch a TSA cowboy style as soon as they grab the testicles. I’ll bet that would make front page news.

    greyghost says:
    April 25, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    It’s easy and overthought. End the TSA now that the war on terror is officially over. End the patriot act also. While you are at it end the FED and vote for Ron Paul.

  21. Phantom – anybody could make comments on Infowars. Just look at how evasive you are here. For your benefit, I’ll attach the report which you refuse to discuss, and here it is –

    Well done to the TSA. They thwarted an attack by the penis-bomber!

    http://www.infowars.com/congressman-says-he-was-targeted-for-grope-down-by-tsa/

    – A US Congressman has claimed that he was assaulted during a TSA patdown and was then targeted for future patdowns by the TSA after complaining about the incident.

    Texas Rep. Francisco Canseco says he was inappropriately touched in private areas during a run in with the TSA earlier this month at San Antonio International Airport.

    One week later Canseco was again singled out by the TSA in the same airport and selected for a pat-down.

    “I did not see it as a coincidence,” he said. “I asked them why are you going to pat me down again, so we discussed it further and after discussing it further, they patted me down.”

    When Canseco refused to allow the agent to touch his private areas a second time, police officers were called to the scene. –

  22. Thanks for posting those two sensible comments there, Phantom.
    Oh, wait, I get it, you posted them thinking that sensible people ought to disagree with them? Because I don’t.
    I would rather face the risk of genuine terrorism than be touched up by these state-employed pervo paedo thugs, any day. What does it say on the job application forms for the TSA? – “Being a pervert/paedo is not strictly necessary, but it sure helps”?

  23. I would rather face the risk of genuine terrorism than be touched up by these state-employed pervo paedo thugs, any day.

    Really? Even after watching how easily the 9/11 murderers smuggled their weapons onto the planes that morning?

    The answer is full body screening, whether we like it or not. At least that will be the end of physical searching.

  24. Yes, really.
    Note: I didn’t say that I would rather have my flight actually hijacked, I said I would rather face that risk (insofar as everything in life carries a certain element of risk) than have to put up with the absolute certainty of inappropriate, invasive and perverted touching-up by state pervo thugs. There are some cases where the denials of liberty involved in totally eliminating a risk are worse than the risk itself.

  25. Really?

    Imagine how much the risk of a repeat of 9/11 would increase if the deterrent of searching passengers was removed. Unthinkable.

  26. Tom

    Stay off my planes and do not set foot in any of of my airports, worldwide.

    That’s an order.

  27. Peter – there was plenty of security on the day of 9/11, of the shoe-bomber, underwear bomber and 7/7. For some inexplicable reason, video surveillance of all perps being searched (if they were) and getting on board their targets failed:

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-firm-blasted-for-letting-would-be-plane-bomber-slip-through-1.261107

    ICTS international is an Israeli transport security company that, in addition to London’s bus system on 7/7, also runs security for:

    Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (Richard Reid the Shoe Bomber?)
    Boston Logan Airport (two aircraft on 9/11)
    Amsterdam Schipol (Umar ‘Underwear Bomber’ Farouk Abdulmutallab?)

    If normal security had worked, the perps would not have got near theur targets. The reasons for failure must be addressed.

  28. The 9/11 hijackers unfortunately did not smuggle their knives onto the planes. It was legal, then.

    That’s why we changed the rules.

  29. The dumbing town and conspiracy theory takeover of this site is depressing.

  30. Yes.

    That is true.

    And the endless anti intellectual gibberish appears to have chased some of the sensible and interesting ones away, for longer and longer stretches.

  31. For what it’s worth I would rather have a thorough airport security system than get blown up halfway to my destination. The problem is that the way some people carry out their jobs can leave a lot to be desired. Then again, there is a lot of responsibility on their shoulders to get it right..
    It is obvious from a governmental pov, that to have a controlled and obedient society (North Korea) is preferable to a society in which personal freedom borders on anarchy.
    So how do you stop a government (which after all has all the levers of power at its finger tips) from abusing that power?
    A large part of the solution HAS to lie in truly accountable government, in which the people are consulted on basic policy formulation. However you do it it needs to be done, so that a democratic government rules with the informed and involved consent of the people.

    As an example, Gay marriage is a big issue over here. The Government has a consultation document put out by the Government Equalities Office through which the public can air their views on the matter….

    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/
    BUT,
    they don’t advertise it – anywhere!
    Yet it is such an easy thing to do. 450,000 people have registered their support for keeping traditional marriage, which you would think would tell our Government that they may have got it wrong..
    So whilst we can applaud some actions of Government, if democratically free societies are going to flourish,they must become more open, accountable, and consultative of the people, not just the special interest groups.

  32. Mahons, on April 26th, 2012 at 12:52 am Said:
    The dumbing town and conspiracy theory takeover of this site is depressing.

    Phantom, on April 26th, 2012 at 2:06 am Said:
    Yes.

    That is true.

    And the endless anti intellectual gibberish appears to have chased some of the sensible and interesting ones away, for longer and longer stretches.

    I thought that Dumb and Dumber was just a comedy. It appears to be real

  33. Peter,

    “Imagine how much the risk of a repeat of 9/11 would increase if the deterrent of searching passengers was removed. ”

    The risk of a repeat of 9/11 was pretty much addressed by securing the cockpits, and the fact that passengers now know what a hijacker might be capable of.

    Now even if they managed to get samurai swords on the plane they would not be able to get into the cockpit. Now no matter what the hijackers say to the passengers they won’t believe it and they won’t passively comply.

    Everything else that has been done since in response is mostly theatre. Besides, trying to prevent the last attack has marginal if any benefit, may even be counterproductive. Notice also that nobody is being searched on entering the tube despite 7/7.

  34. Preventing the carrying of firearms onto aircraft( some dummies here actually supported passenger guns on planes ) or the intro of explosive liquids on board seems a fine idea to me and not to be theater

    And cockpit doors do open in flight – I see it

  35. Phantom,

    I recommend this guy on the topic.

    The 9/11 terrorists used small pointy things to take over airplanes, so we ban small pointy things from airplanes. Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoes, so now we all have to take off our shoes. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security said that it might relax airplane security rules. It’s not that there’s a lessened risk of shoes, or that small pointy things are suddenly less dangerous. It’s that those movie plots no longer capture the imagination like they did in the months after 9/11, and everyone is beginning to see how silly (or pointless) they always were.

    Commuter terrorism is the new movie plot. The London bombers carried bombs into the subway, so now we search people entering the subways. They used cell phones, so we’re talking about ways to shut down the cell-phone network.

    It’s too early to tell if hurricanes are the next movie-plot threat that captures the imagination.

    The problem with movie plot security is that it only works if we guess right. If we spend billions defending our subways, and the terrorists bomb a bus, we’ve wasted our money. To be sure, defending the subways makes commuting safer. But focusing on subways also has the effect of shifting attacks toward less-defended targets, and the result is that we’re no safer overall.

    Terrorists don’t care if they blow up subways, buses, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, schools, churches, crowded markets or busy intersections. Reasonable arguments can be made that some targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because most people commute daily. But the United States is a big country; we can’t defend everything.
    […]
    We need to defend against the broad threat of terrorism, not against specific movie plots. Security is most effective when it doesn’t make arbitrary assumptions about the next terrorist act. We need to spend more money on intelligence and investigation: identifying the terrorists themselves, cutting off their funding, and stopping them regardless of what their plans are. We need to spend more money on emergency response: lessening the impact of a terrorist attack, regardless of what it is. And we need to face the geopolitical consequences of our foreign policy and how it helps or hinders terrorism.
    These vague things are less visible, and don’t make for good political grandstanding. But they will make us safer. Throwing money at this year’s movie plot threat won’t.