Once again, you aren’t special. I’ve taken kids through airport security many times, and it’s never been through ANY of the ordeal you describe. At least, I didn’t treat it as an ordeal, just a normal trip through an airport. That’s what it is, it’s a different kind of place, and we have to adjust our behavior and expectations, in order to protect ourselves and everyone else.

Too bad if it means a little bit of inconvenience has to intrude on your precious, special existence. You obviously go through life expecting EVERYONE to accommodate to your demands for your life to be smooth as silk with no bumps. I live in the real world, where YOU aren’t the center of my universe, or anyone else’s, and nobody cares about your demands.

I can just picture you going through the line, huffing and puffing, and complaining about how long it is taking, and you don’t have time to wait, yadda-yadda. I’ve seen your type in airports many many times. You ARE the problem, you drama queen.

“People who would plan an attack…”

Sure, perhaps it wouldn’t hold up a serious professional terrorist, but those are few and far between. It WILL deter the amateur lone wolf attacker who is looking for the target of least resistance. If it was easy to just walk onto a flight with a gun or bomb, maybe they would, but it is unlikely that an amateur would bother to make the attempt, assuming that the likelihood of failure would be high. So that eliminates 90% of the threat.

As for the other 10%, that’s an issue to be dealt with on a bigger level. I saw one analysis of 9/11 that determined that it wasn’t a failure of TSA, it was a governmental intelligence failure, who had many opportunities to flag these guys, and they never connected the dots, or even tried to. They even arrested one guy on an indirect charge (leaving the plot short by one man), and never connected him to a larger event. All parties needed to be more observant, and they blew it.

As for the history, you are right, we had it dialed in pretty good by the 90s, after dealing with a lot of terrorism in the 70s & 80s, and it was starting to work for us, although hijacking continued around the world. But it was not equally good, as 9/11 proved. Until 9/11, which was the first time that an airplane had been used as a deliberate weapon of mass destruction, and there four of them. Clearly, the appearance of security was an illusion.

If you compare the pre- and post- 9/11 security, they look similar on their faces. They had similar security lines, X-ray machines, etc. But pre-9/11 they used private, contracted security companies, and protocols were fairly loose. Even so, the 9/11 hijackers were forced to use utility knives as weapons, because they didn’t trust trying to smuggle bigger knives, or guns, past security.

The behavior of passengers was an issue as well. Prior to 9/11, passengers knew to sit tight, don’t rile up the hijackers, and eventually the authorities would work it out, one way or another. 9/11, and subsequent attacks like the shoe and underwear bomber, taught passengers that they were responsible for their own safety.

Post 9/11, besides passenger awareness, there was a new professional agency to be responsible for airline security lines, with much stronger protocols, which developed as new threats emerged, like those mentioned before. And the result was no hijackings in 25 years, an impressive record, considering the 20th century’s abysmal record.

You used the term “by my logic,” but here’s my actual logic:

I have made the argument that TSA’s primary objective is to discourage airplane violence when the amateur terrorist is still conceiving his plan, and the 90s, pre-9/11 security protocols seem to have done a good job of that during the 90s.

But then 9/11 happened, and proved that while those 90s protocols might discourage the amateur lone wolf, it won’t discourage the professional organized terrorist. Fighting that enemy requires a more comprehensive strategy combining airport security and intelligence agencies. That’s what would have prevented 9/11, and has prevented any further nonsense since.

So it seems like TSA and the enhanced and improved protocols have been very successful in reaching these twin objectives. It would be extremely counterproductive to get rid of them because you’re pissed off at MAGA, Trump, and ICE. Nobody hates them more than me, but TSA does an effective job in tough circumstances, and we should appreciate them and their work. They aren’t cops, they’re keeping our loved ones alive when traveling to see us, and I’m grateful for that.

“Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up.”

If there were regular airline hijackings before 9/11 we would have had that security already.

Despite a mountain of evidence, easily available with a Google search, you just blurt out one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard.

Are you actually telling me that there were no hijackings before 9/11, and that any reports of hijackings are fabrications? Because that’s an incredibly ignorant statement.

First of all, there WAS baggage inspections before 9/11, and people complained about it all the time. The videos of the 9/11 hijackers on that day ALL come from security cameras trained on the X-ray machines, and you can see plenty of people around them. It looks essentially the same as it does today. The security just wasn’t as strong as it is now.

Pre-9/11, security was handled by private security companies, different ones in every airport in every city, and standards were inconsistent. Post 9/11, the government formed TSA to maintain consistent airport security around the country, and a few private security companies probably went out of business. Also, stricter training and protocols were implemented, and have evolved due to emerging threats like shoe bombs, underwear bombs, and water bottle bombs.

Now let’s get into your primary assertion, which was that weren’t any hijackings before 9/11. According to Wikipedia:

Between 1958 and 1967, there were approximately 40 hijackings worldwide

According to the FAA, in the 1960s, there were 100 attempts of hijackings involving U.S. aircraft: 77 successful and 23 unsuccessful.

In a five-year period (1968–1972) the world experienced 326 hijack attempts, or one every 5.6 days

Between 1978 and 1988, there were roughly 26 incidents of hijackings a year.

During the 1990s, there was relative peace in the United States airspace as the threat of domestic hijacking was seen as a distant memory. Globally, however, hijackings still persisted. Between 1993 and 2003, the highest number of hijackings occurred in 1993

Then we had 9/11, the first time in history that an airplane had been used as a weapon of mass destruction.

So go ahead, Junior, and talk out your ass again how there wasn’t any hijackings or airport security before 9/11.

This may be the stupidest argument I’ve ever had. You people are arguing like MAGAs.

Hundreds of hijackings before TSA, including 9/11. None in the 25 years since TSA and the new protocols. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s clearly worked, and even with it’s imperfections, it’s far better than NOTHING, which seems to be the only alternative suggestion.

I get it, air travel is a pain in the ass, and there is always a bit of a wait for the security screening. So what? We wait everywhere - the bank, the barber, the fast food drive through line, the grocery store, etc. Isn’t spending some time in line worth not getting blown out of the sky?

Do you people actually think air travel will be SAFER without airport security? Because we had security before 9/11, and it still happened. Without any security, we’ll go back to that 4 year period in the 70s when we had over 300 hijackings, more than one per week. That’ll be fun, right?

Did you get dropped on your head? When there’s a crazy guy waving a gun, and demanding to go to Cuba (that was really popular for a while, for some reason), NOBODY on the plane is thinking that this is just a guy stealing a plane, nothing to worry about. They are frightened for their very lives, not thinking that this isn’t a “real” hijacking. That’s about the most idiotic take I can imagine.

Yeah, and they were nothing like 9/11, which was the very first time a plane had been used as a weapon of mass destruction before, and they used 4 of them simultaneously. It was really, really serious.

But that doesn’t mean previous hijackings weren’t serious. People died in hijackings and rescues around the world all the time. It doesn’t have to be as big as 9/11, to still be serious.

We dropped 2 atomic bombs at the end of WW2. They were really big, bigger than anything that came before. Does that mean the fire bombing of Tokyo wasn’t serious? The fire-bombing of Dresden into rubble wasn’t serious? How about all the other bombings we did in WW2? Were those not serious, just because something much bigger was in the future? I doubt the victims of the bombings would agree.

And you know what, Einstein? YOU don’t get to determine which statistics are realistic or not. Get another couple of years of education, until you can spell Google, then look up the Wikipedia entry on Hijackings.

I’m arguing with people who have never seen a hijacking, while I lived through all of them in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, AND 9/11, which many people here don’t even remember.

No, that’s not how hijackings work, and not why they decreased. They did not “let the hijackers do what they want,” and anyway, how would that discourage hijacking? If they were letting the hijackers do whatever they want, wouldn’t that ENCOURAGE hijackers?

They decreased because of steady improvement in security, until they had discouraged all but the most froggy terrorist, which is what we got on 9/11. Then they tightened up protocols even more, and we haven’t had any more hijackings.

You guys are arguing with me, but this isn’t me saying this, it is the assessment of literally everyone who has studied it. All of the people in this thread are trying to support their arguments with invented facts that conflict with historical truth.

If you want to be a pedantic dickbag and focus on the word “sneaking” when the key part of the post (which was conveniently written in all caps in case you have a hard time understanding the point of the simple sentence) was FLYING IN and “illegals,” then sure, you are correct. They are “illegals” whether they sneak in or overstay. And the post was also about what ICE is doing. They aren’t only going after people who sneak in. They are going after all illegal immigration.

I do realize that I called them undocumented immigrants, when I don’t know if they are still considered “documented” if their documents are no longer valid/legal.