My argument was: "People smuggle drugs or bombs in all sorts of unusual ways." So I gave examples of unlikely people who were suicide bombers: child bombers, white bombers, old bombers. My examples are very relevant to my argument.

You were trying to make me change my argument from "unlikely people have been suicide bombers, and elderly ladies wearing diapers may be next" to "elderly ladies wearing diapers have been suicide bombers". I never had any intention of arguing for the latter. So yes, you were trying to dictate how I can or can't argue.

And I didn't ignore you. I responded to your challenge to find an example of an elderly lady wearing diapers being a suicide bomber with this: "There is always a first. Especially with clandestine activities like this, criminals are constantly looking for new ways to evade the authorities... Who knows that an elderly lady wearing diapers won't be next?" It is you who ignored this reply of mine.

In fact, you didn't merely neglect to respond to it. You offered a reply to another part of my argument (the 3 bomber examples I raised) while ignoring the part that I quoted in the paragraph above (which is the argument that is supposed to accompany those examples). Perhaps you honestly didn't make the mental connection between my examples and my argument, in which case you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. But it seems more likely that you deliberately split them up so you can write a smart-ass reply to part of my post and pretend to have replied to the whole thing.

"Unwritten rule" doesn't mean "a rule that nobody knows about". It simply means it's not stated in the official regulations. Do you think people know absolutely nothing about how a government agency works except what they learn from reading their regulations? Did you come to your conclusions about the US government's incompetence purely by reading volume after volume of state and federal laws? You don't need to argue about how stupid terrorists are; even the stupidest people who aren't actually mentally disabled know that you figure out what a system's weaknesses are either by observing it in action, or by getting someone in the know to explain how the system actually works as opposed to how it works on paper. If security decides not to check people who fit a particular profile (like "elderly ladies wearing diapers"), chances are very good that people will find out, sooner or later.

And of course physically or mentally disabled people should be checked at airport terminals. Everyone should be checked, or have a possibility of being checked.