Slashdot Mirror
Old Methods Used to Detect Liquid Explosives
Bain writes "According to Wired News, the UK fear of terrorists using liquid explosives could be dramatically reduced by the use of some very old tech. Recent events have seen passengers forced to pack only the barest of essentials into clear plastic bags and the restriction on all liquids force even mothers with young children to have to test bottled milk to prove that it isn't a dangerous liquid." From the article: "For a machine to detect explosives in liquid or solid form, it bombards an object with energy -- such as radio waves or neutrons -- and in seconds measures the reaction, a response that differs depending on the material's chemical properties. Software in the machine is programmed to alert screeners if it detects chemical signatures known to match those of dangerous materials. A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect."
I thought the chemicals involved in the terror plot (including 'pirahna') were entirely too volatile to be mixed on the plane in the first place, and too stinky to even make it past a sniff test (even in precursor form)? Or at least something inane like you'd blow yourself up before you made enough of it to get anywhere...
"What the hell was that bang?!!!"
And with that aside, how are we protecting the nation's railways, malls, gas stations, and all other manner of targets?
Please remember:
The planes that were crashed into the WTC where hijacked with carpet cutters. The current threat was discovered when "classic police work" lead to an arrest in Pakistan.
The war against terror is not fought with technology and will never be won by technology. There is no way to guarantee safety from terrorists any more than there is a really secure computer system. The only way to live safely would be in a bunker, and that's no live.
Terror has to be fought by international politics. Anything else will fail, because there will always be loopholes left.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Later on they mention that it still requires a human to examine. I think both problems can be solved with automated pattern-based checking.
A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect.
Thank you for the Insight!
-Mr. Terrorist
From the article:
"Homeland security analyst Brian Ruttenbur of Morgan Keegan also points out that the technology still produces a relatively high number of false alarms."
and
"A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect.
"Certainly, some common ingredients in liquid explosives can be programmed into the detector. But Kant, at Rapiscan, said he would not discuss the vulnerabilities of that approach. 'Whether it detects the components of explosives and which ones, there's no way I'm putting that in print,' he said."
We still allowed fertilizer to be transported by truck after the Oklahoma City bombing. I really don't know how we can expect people to transport any substance by airplane if there's even a slight chance that it could be used in a clever bomb-making scheme.
For more information, click here.
The risks still add up, even when you use this machine:
So, you end up putting a lot of money into doing something that will help very few flights, incovenience a large total number of innocent people, and possibly not protect the public at all.
Even expert bombers need practice.
""What the hell was that bang?!!!""
Airline food.
There's only one thing we need to remove from air travel: terrorists. It's not the gel explosive that blows up the plane, it's the nutcase that hits the detonator. If a person is hell-bent on destroying life, they will find a way, no matter what you ban in terms of physical objects. We just need to ban terrorists from flying on airplanes, and that would have the desired effect. Personally, I think detecting terrorists is a lot cheaper than detecting explosives anyhow.
1. You stop every person that has access to the plane, every person getting on the plane for any reason, etc. (already almost doing that)
2. Determine if they're a terrorist somehow. (??? step)
3. Success! No more plane bombings.
stuff |
This is all a red herring anyway.
"A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect."
The answer to that is of course, no. You can't design an idiot proof system because they keep coming up with better idiots. No only that, I believe some hacker guy called Kevin hypothesized that you can't firewall a system to be 100% secure, because social engineering is the exploit to overcome any hole in a system.
I know this isn't a political discussion about the matter of liquid bomb sniffers for airports, but we should be crying bloody murder that the government is letting the terrorists win this time without them firing a shot. Mothers tasting their baby formula again? I recall an airport employee doing that years ago to a mother with breatmilk in a bottle, and she sued didn't she?
Oh You POS
Why can't man's best friend, the K-9, sniff out these liquid explosives instead of buying a $250,000 "puffer"?
What's sad is that governments have known about plans to destroy aircraft with carry-on liquids since at least 1995. With a small fraction of the Iraq war budget (I've heard 1%) the US could have those air blowing detectors at every airport to at least catch many solid explosives. If enough of the government actually cared we could have had this liquid detector problem solved a long time ago. This should have been a /. story back in 1995.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm only able to guess this hits chicks more than it does guys, with all the makeup and such they carry in purses on board. And seriously, how often are they gonna have an emergency 'make up situation'....just pack it all in checked luggage.
I guess I see all the lines on tv and hear about cancelled flights, and at least on the US side of things where just liquids were banned, I couldn't understand the delays...do THAT many people carry liquids as standard practice in carry on luggage?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"One big reason is that it is not easy to integrate the explosive-detecting machines, some of which can cost $250,000, into existing security checkpoints. Because each briefcase, purse or other carry-on bag has to be put in a special drawer for analysis, using the detectors could significantly bog down passenger screening. [...] the technology still produces a relatively high number of false alarms."
Chemistry is capeable of some fascinating things. Two extremely dangerous and deadly chemicals combine to make a tasty food additive (salt). Still, I am not aware of any liquid explosives that are completely invisible to explosive detection in component form.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
FTA A major problem is that the view is so powerful that an individual's private parts can be seen
So the x-ray glasses advertised in comic magazines really do work. I was always wondering about that. How is this a problem?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Let's review some notably successful attacks and see if we can learn something...
There is an awful lot of effort being expended protecting us from complex high-tech attacks, when the demonstrated pattern has been for Al Qaeda to use relatively low-tech methods and strike at targets that are easy to hit and achieve significant headlines. If we should learn anything from this, it is that Al Qaeda spends its terrorist money well, getting maximum effect for a minimum of resource.
What we need is more thought and less hasty action, so that we too, might be capable of effective action in return. Pointless blustering actions like this, intended to reassure the public and sustain existing administrations' terms in office, do more to aide and abet the enemy than to frustrate them. We need reason and logic as our allies, instead of keeping them locked in the basement.
A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect.
It's simple. Have them mixed all the stuff together. If it goes BOOM, that's bad. If it doesn't, no problem.
How about this -- treat the airplane just like a movie theater: no outside food/drinks allowed. We need to dispense with the high gadgets and just say you can't bring anything on board except the clothes on your back. All food, drinks and comfort will be provided by the airlines. That the only way to truly make things safe. Or if overhead luggage is allowed, it must be locked down for the entire flight: no access at all.
It's unfortunate that we have to come to this level, but I'd rather sacrifice my precious water bottle on a long flight than end up crashing into a building any day.
Health Insurance Quotes
Aren't dogs already trained to sniff out innocuous chemicals during their drug sniffing training?
I've seen dogs in O'Hare for sniffing out imported fruit/veg pick up people who've eaten a bananna.
Surely these are better than any mechanical screening device.
What if finding these liquid explosives invades the terrorist's privacy? Isn't it bad enough that the NSA was spying on these terrorists and violating their privacy in the UK? Now you want to detect their explosives? Someday, terrorists won't be able to enjoy any privacy at all!
It doesn't seem fair to the terrorists at all.
Where's the ACLU on this?
From TFA: "Rapiscan is developing four kinds of devices -- some based on technologies more than 10 years old". My car is based on technology more than 10 years old. In fact, the tech is more than 10,000 years old. They're called wheels. How does this make it newsworthy?
This is how the loudness war is killing music.
without any carry-on luggage, as long as they increase the security checks on the luggage handlers and improve the luggage sorting technology to prevent my stuff from being "lost".
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
If I'm a terrorist I'm not bringing any liquid on board. Just a carryon full of Mentos(you know the fresh maker). Then I'm ordering diet coke after diet coke. There is going to be lots of sticky passengers. FEAR ME!
Maybe I'm missing out on the bomb which you can make by mixing breast milk and cola, but what the hell kind of bomb would you put together? The ingredients used in binary explosives tend to be rather toxic, volatile, and generally a pain in the ass to handle.
Why has no one made mentos and coke jokes yet?
Technological Solution to a Sociological Problem.
Yeah, as history shown us that works.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
Here are the web sites of the two companies mentioned in the article.
Rapiscan Systems
and
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc.
They both have interesting product portfolios.
Perhaps random rectal and mouth exams are in order. Also passengers should sedated and cuffed nude with their arms outstretched for the duration of the journey.
"...with enough soap you can blow up just about anything."
At first I read breast. Sorry...
Aha! I must have been reading ahead of myself. While I'm on the topic, will they ban breasts, since they contain liquids, or will children be able to drink the natural way without restriction?
. If enough of the government actually cared we could have had this liquid detector problem solved a long time ago.
Then again, the government should have better priorities than chasing down "terrorists". A few thousand people have died in US history due to "terrorism". Millions died during the last flu epidemic.
If the government really cared about it's citizens (and few governments do), they would work on issues like health care, road safety, and the other dangerous issues that actually kill large numbers of people, but look boring on the daily news. Instead, they focus on flashy threats, like terrorism and airline accidents, that generate a lot of shock and awe and media buzz; even if those threats have relatively low numbers in terms of mortality rates.
Terrorism isn't likely to kill anyone. Driving to work is a greater threat; but a more boring one, so it doesn't get the attention it statistically deserves...
Bombard it with energy, and measure the reaction seconds later? For some reason, an image keeps popping into my head of putting the substance in a 1.5-kilowatt microwave, zapping it for five seconds, and seeing if it explodes or not.
I guess there would have to be some blast deflectors around the microwave.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Let's follow the lead of our forefathers, who didn't rely on fancy-pants machines to tell them whether their convictions were true.
Instead, let's set anyone who looks suspicious on fire! That way, if they go boom, then we'll be certain that they were a terrorist. And if they just burn, then we'll be remorseful, sure. But we will also clap ourselves on the back for being so diligent in our war on terror. You can't be too careful, you know. Or don't you love freedom!?
Breaking news: After the decided inability of current detection technology to differ between amonium and water, and any other substance, it has been decided that you are no longer allowed to wear any clothing or take any luggage on board. You will also be required to be freeze fried for the duration of the journey.
When asked, airlines felt this was a little incovenient, but helped save on staffing and reduce the need to provide food to the passengers and also would save on providing other expensive forms of inflight entertainment.
When random sheep, uh person, was asked what they thought of this, they answered "If this is what it takes to provide a safe flight, and this is recommended by our leaders, then this is good and we should accept this willingly. After all you don't want the terrorists to win". When asked whether these measures indicated that the terrorists had won, the person answered "I don't understand the question".
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You could always have two lines- one for those who want to bring in beverages, one for those who don't.
But how exact would the masking be? Would a man be able to strap a small vial to the underside of his genitals, or a woman hide something in her cleavage (and, uh, other places)?
Something I've been wondering as we ramp up security to make flying a nightmare for everyone- aren't many of these processes making investigation work harder? We keep instituting new restrictions, and the terrorists would just find a way around them. We're playing a reactionary game, putting systems in place only after something happens (no more small knives after 9/11, check all shoes for bombs after that one guy, no more liquids after this foiled attempt), and all it's doing is slowing down everyone.
Not that we should remove all security checks- heaven forbid someone is able to walk onto the airplane with a kilo of C4. But if we keep making our security tighter, then so will the terrorists, and that means less of a chance messing up, which is usually how detectives/investigators find out about stuff and catch them. If the terrorists have a lax atmosphere, then they will be more lax, and more prone to mistakes.
How does the saying go? "The tighter you squeeze the more they will slip through your fingers"?
It is very trivial to get past that. Simply put a small bottle inside of the larger one and have it contain the fake stuff. So imagine a shampoo with a long small container inside that contains shampoo. TSA are not known for being the very brightest.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What, exactly, is the "old tech" referred to in the summary? The word "old" doesn't even occur in the article! All the techniques mentioned in the article require very modern and sophisticated technology for implementation.
Fact is, there will probably never be a foolproof "bad material" detector, since there are simply too many substances that can be combined to form something dangerous. A better approach would probably be to have a "whitelist" of permissible substances whose identity could be verified. Even this would be very difficult to do reliably (there are lots of ways to "disguise" a material as something else once you know the identification technique being used; it becomes harder if you use multiple detection schemes, but then of course the cost increases as well).
...do you have any idea how much it costs to train a sniffer dog capable of doing this? Hint, it's pretty big, plus dogs tend to die quicker than such a machine (should).
I am NaN
I would really love to see some survey results on this (not from the slashdot crowd who obviously all see through this sort of inane security theater)
Does anyone have links to polls of the general community that ask questions like:
"do you feel that the security measures being taken in airports are appropriate?"
and
"does the ban on liquids on a plane make you feel safer?"
Maybe I just live in and with abnormal people, but NO ONE I know seems to feel that this is a reasonable course of action for our country to be following. I sort of want to know if anyone in this republic does, as I know my sample is more than a little bit off center.
Alternatively, forcibly convert everyone to Islam. Then we will all be on the same side.
My solution is better than yours, because your solution kills a lot of innocent people, whereas mine shows a respect for life.
My guess is that everything will go back to normal (for a while) once the elections are over. These arrests almost always end up being some Keystone Cops messy goof up. Of course, I never thought a September 11th-like incident would happen either. Still, in this instance, I'm pretty skeptical.
Just be thankful that this plot didn't involve explosive buttplugs...
Test your net with Netalyzr
Could Americans have LOST the Bravery needed to actually BE free, because it seems that we're at a point where you're not even allowed to own and use PROPERTY without approval.
I wonder when exactly the Airlines forgot they needed to obey the Constitution. A State cannot give an artificial legal entity priviledges it doesn't have, such violating the security of our persons, papers and effects.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Making an educated guess, it shouldn't be that hard to build a sensor to distinguish between "WATER (99%+ pure)" and "NOT WATER". With that in place, the most immediate problem (people needing to hydrate in the dessicated onboard air) could be solved by allowing water (after pouring a few drops into the sensor) on board.
(Yes, a terrorist could hide something else in a false bottom. However, a terrorist could hide a similar quantity of whatever substance anyway unless he's strip-searched and anal-probed).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I think you are right. On the bright side getting rid of carry-on luggage will make security checks, boarding and deplaning much faster and safer, especially in an emergency. The problem of timed explosives in checked bags remain however. The main reason people are averse to checking baggage is the efficiency of the process. Perhaps this is an opportunity for that to improve. Another improvement would be to replace 2 flight attendants with non-lethally armed security guards - if a passenger acts up he gets tapped with a "be good" stick.
an ill wind that blows no good
Even if the articles stated quite simply what the statistics are...people would still be afraid of the 'others'. It's the ol' tribal mentality coming to the surface. It skews their ability to weigh threats against each other.
Besides, they can stop flying...they can't stop driving! How will they eat?
Blar.
A few years ago, shortly after 9/11, my friend and his wife and child were stopped at airport security for a having a baby bottle with formula. His wife was ordered to drink from the bottle to prove it was formula. She refused because she said the bottle needs to be somewhat sterile and even her germs were bad for the kid. She was forced to leave the bottle behind or they would miss their flight. To make a long story short, they took the long flight without the tit milk. Ultimately, they sued the airline and won. Point is..they must have suspected liquids to be a danger even before this most recent threat. Now they are confiscating peoples hair gel. Do the bad guys have to get this far before they make new rules? 5 years and no technology to prove booby milk is real. c4 candy bars are next.
Hello !?
Why is no one talking about that the most damaged will be made by detonating at the security check point instead of in the airplane? look at those long serpentine lines!
priority should be in preventing terrorist from entering the airport.
if they damage checkpoints at the airport it will take even longer to get on any airplane and more people will be afraid to wait on larger waiting lines because of the potential risk
Damaged/lost airplanes can be replaced relatively faster than it takes to repair an airport. If the airport is disabled, terrorist will affect a larger number of people
Look, if the suicide bomber reaches the middle of the checkpoint line, and preparest to detonate, how fast can a security officer reach him and stop him while trying to move the other people out of the way?
Everyone entering the airport is a potential suspect, not just the ones willing to fly.
If I was a guard, and I saw someone coming through the line with a clear liquid that *could* be an explosive substance, I would just ask the person carrying said item to take a big swig of the liquid. I would watch his/her facial expression for signs of pain/discomfort. If they look normal, they can carry on.
Try the swig test!
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
The real problem is that many everyday items such as box cutters have potentially dangerous uses. A bottle of vodka could be used to start a large fire, lithium ion batteries can be made to explode (and sometimes do so on their own), a number of relatively common chemicals (some even edible) can react to give off toxic gas.
The solution to the problem of terrorism is not technical in nature.
Soon enough we`ll have to board airplanes bare naked, and our luggage will be shipped separately through UPS...
No carry on, period, and you will be stripped naked and thrown in a paper smock. Then we should be safe as long as nobody hides their devices in checked baggage with some sort of time and/or altitude based trigger.
The plan is that the baby that drinks the neutron-laced super-milk will turn into some sort of terrorist-fighting mega-baby with superpowers. That's how the machine helps in the War on Terra!
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Seems like I heard something like that somewhere...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Maybe they just need more time? Christians were brutal 1000 years ago, and still can be. Though I agree the extremists are frightening.
What I'm really wondering is can I bring bottled water if I freeze it first. It's no longer a liquid so isn't banned as far as I can tell.
Excuse me for calling BS on all of this but the very same morning (saturday) that CNN was still boasting 5 hour wait lines (extending all the way out through the door of SFO airport building) and talking about 250 additional police officers/national guards (still at SFO), on my way back from WWDC I have waited exactly 20 minutes to get through the ticket counter and 20 minutes to go through the first security gate (complete with air sniffer).
Pretty fast for an average day.
Throughout this, I saw exactly ONE police officer.
And there wasn't a hint of a second security gate, less even checks before boarding the plane, for any of the banned liquid/gels.
When it comes to yet another highway fatality the cost in terms of human life is measurable, but the impact on day-to-day life in our society hardly sees a blip (unless that fatality closes the 405, 101, or some other major thoroughfare; then it is (sorry to say) a tragedy on a grander scale!).
Reducing deaths in daily life is a different subject altogether from stopping terrorism. Don't you recall September 2001? The month the skies were quiet? Few people died in the planes (compared to the numbers flying that day) but the effect was that all traffic was stopped for days. Our nation was at a standstill. THAT is the intent of terrorism. Remember the stock market crash after 9/11/01? THAT is the intent of terrorism. Remember Spain pulling out of the alliance fighting terror sponsors in the Middle East (e.g., Iraq)? THAT is the intent of the terrorist. Murder is a means to the terrorist, not the aim.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Check out CDEX's detection technology, base on UV and X-ray fluorescence. Full Disclosure: I used to work there, but quit because my boss was an ass. However, the tech does work. Amazingly, (or not so, depending on your familiarity with the physics of UV-fluorescence) it does. Scanning solids was a little more difficult, and actually scanning liquids is much easier. They had an man-portable X-ray mine detector. The downside was that the operator got serious dosage of X-rays.
I don't fear computers, I fear the lack of them. -I. Asimov
This is slashdot, yet out of the hundreds of thousands of people in the world who know it, the slashdot community is oblivious.
The WTC builders where NOT brought down by airplanes folks. It was thermite with sulphur added. Read Dr. Steven E. Jones' paper at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ He's a BYU professor.
Great in theory but do you want to sit on the London - Australia flight next to a handful of really bored kids who are snivelling because they don't have their toys and the inflight sales toys are so expensive their parents could only afford to buy one each and they hate the food and why can't they have their own... plus the geek on the other side moaning about how he really needs to work on his laptop, and all you've got to keep you sane is the inflight magazine and ten back to back disney movies and paying 5 dollars for a bottle of water (because the airlines will charge what they fancy when there's no competition).
First of all, there is no such thing as eradicating all possible terrorism in any subject area. Flying? Even if they shipped everyone's luggage is separate planes, allowed no carry-ons, and made everyone wear paper clothes on the plane given to us on the tarmac, a terrorist or group of terrorists could still undertake a suicide bombing of a plane. Second, look under your kitchen sink. All the chemicals (liquid or solid) one needs can be found there. Look in your garage. Ditto. Go to your local megahardware store. Ditto. Go to your local grocer. Ditto. Everyone everywhere has access to everything necessary to be a terrorist. Even if a terrorist mixes pool shock and aluminum foil and makes a whole bunch of noxious fumes over the Atlantic and does not succeed in blowing the plane up, they still have instilled fear and done their job. The answer: live out your life because living in fear of tomorrow is worse than dying today.
Perhaps I should clarify - there will always be a group of elites opposed to the U.S., not because they hold anything in particular against us, but rather they gain political or other power by fighting us. They will always find a religious cover to stir the fanatics up to help them, much as certain politicians wrap their unconstitutional goals in the US flag to get the "patriots" to pass legislation without blinking.
Religion is just a misdirection to hide their true goals.
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
"If they go boom, then we'll be certain that they were a terrorist. And if they just burn ..." then you're perfectly confident that the individual was a Witch (an equally undesirable member of society.) I seem to recall similar tests using ducks and small rocks, but I don't remember the details.
...no more small knives after 9/11...
Actually small pocket knives (and scissors) are allowed again.
Generally I agree though how silly it is that they seem to ban something only after someone thinks to use it badly. This last time, for a brief period they did not even have books on the approved carry-on list! That's just not tolerable for long flights, you can't expect people to sit for twelve hours with nothing at all to do.
I had thought of setting up a shadow puppet theater on a plane though if I even had to fly under such restrictions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Instead of asking "why don't you just accept this restriction" you should really be asking "why should it exist in the first place"
Well that's very pithy, except the answer to your question is obvious - because someone was planning to use liquid explosives on a plane, and they've not caught everyone in on the plan.
Seems pretty obvious why the restrictions are in place. True it's not impossible to get around them but risk management is all a game of lowering percentages and now the percenatge of ways to deliver liquids onto a plan has been diminished.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's to stop a terrorist walking straight through the X-Ray screener with the liquid swallowed in a condom? Or just a conventional sold explosive shoved up his backside?
What's to stop someone breaking into a house through a window? Yet most people lock doors to homes.
Just because there is always a more exteme way to do something does not mean that no precautions should be put in place - especially when precautions are tailored to actual plans found laid out.
You can't get rid of all risk but you can reduce the percentages. Personally if it means only two planes are blown up instead of ten I'd say that's worthwhile.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While, obviously, your response was tongue-in-cheek, and your predecessor's was just flamebait, I find it an interesting question. Would terrorism really stop if everyone was converted to Islam?
My guess is no. I'm a Muslim, and I'm fairly certain that if the Islamic extremists managed to destroy the Western world, we'd see a situation similar to that of the Taleban in Afghanistan--an increasingly repressive regime based entirely on tightening the limits on what "true" Islam can be considered. I'm in no position to say that most Muslims disapprove of terrorism, (I often feel like this is lip service), but I can tell you for certain that the extremists are crazy sons of bitches, and there's no such thing as a Muslim that doesn't believe, to the letter, what they believe. You are either one of them, or you're a heretic. And if you fall into the latter category, then you're going to get a.) shot, b.) stoned, or c.) burned alive. Or blown up, if you're not easily incarcerated.
Well, if a guy tries to get on board with a few ounces of bleach, some tinfoil, and a mullet. Things are going to turn sour quick. For the terrorists, that is. We all know guys with mullets are never bad guys.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
The best way for the Western world to deal with terrorists is to not antagonize people to the point that they're forced to resort to terrorism.
Yes, that likely does mean getting out of the Middle East completely. That would entail no further financial or material support for Israel, or for any of the other nations in the region. Troops would have to be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Repeated threats could no longer be made against Iran. And perhaps the most significant of all, there would need to be a massive reduction of the Western reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Of course, the Middle East isn't the only region where the meddling would have to stop. It would need to be ceased on a global scale.
There will likely still be much conflict within the nations of that area. That's how it has been for millennia. But it's not in the best interest of the Western nations to involve themselves in such disputes. Many such conflicts revolve around cultural, religious and ideological matters that are completely foreign to most Western politicians. Those without a clue should not involve themselves in such delicate matters.
That would work, step 1: ban H2O, step 2: no more pesky humans, step 3: no more crime!
Aside: If Islam is a religion of peace, why is there so much violence where it is unanimously practiced?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Seriously.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
All this security is going to stop a stinger missile exactly how? the problems never the scenario you expect. Its the one you haven't thought about that gets you.
People (and reluctantly I include terrorists here) as individuals are quite clever and can think their way around most restrictions. Its only when you lump people together that they behave like sheep (and unintelligent ones at that)
As many people have commented the purpose of all this 'Security' is Public Relations it has very little to do with the safety of the travelling public but a lot to do with reassurance. (this is actually not a bad thing as it helps convince people to behave normally) But recently the authorities on both sides of the pond have taken to using 'terrorism'TM as an excuse for all sorts of wrongdoing on their behalf, and because of this have a large credebility problem with anyone with half a brain
In this case I initially thought it was mainly a put up goverment FUD campaign, then changed to believing it might be a real problem. Now I'm coming to belive my inital thoughts where correct ( things are a little TOO convienient for the goverments case)
How about instead of using a slow and inefficent policical process to mandate one single security model or technological system as the be-all end-all to all our security problems - we instead leave security entirely up to the people who have the most to lose from airplane destruction: airports, airlines, and passengers. Let each airport and airline decide on their own security policies, purchase their own security equipment, and handle everything in a way specialized for their own specific situation... and give customers the choice to decide what security system they feel is the safest (or the least hassle, depending on their own personal preference) by selecting an airline or airport that they fell comfortable with.
... Where as if each airport and airline handled their own security, and were allowed to customize security policies based on a specific situation, there would be so many diverse security policies and techniques, and policies would be so dynamic and unpredictable, that there would be no sure fire way to get past any security.
The problem with the Soviet-style centrally planned monopoly goverment security as provided by the TSA is:
1. If you know how to compromise security in one place in the U.S., you know how to compromise security everywhere in the U.S.
2. In the U.S. Soviet system, there is no experimentation. The system is implemented, and there is no other system to compare it to. In a private and localized system, there would be experimentation and diversity and change... people would be able to compare the effectivness of different security models, and see what policies work, and there would be a constant evolution of security.
3. There is no incentive to invest in technology that speeds up security checks. Airlines would be more willing to invest in technology that improves the speed of security checks, as it would be a competitive advantage to the airline. Right now, if there is a $1,000,000 machine that could speed up check-in and security, it doesn't matter as security related delays effect all airlines equally. No airline loses buisness to another airline because of security delays... airlines just keep telling their passangers to be at the airport earlier and earlier and don't have to worry about doing anything to speed it up to stay competitive.
Basicly, no technology is going to improve anything so long as the U.S. continues to use the Soviet Socialist model for providing security. Making the TSA the sole provider of airport security makes about as much sense as would making Microsoft the sole provider of operating system security - Monoculture and lack of diversity is inherently insecure. The TSA is security theater, designed to show that politicians are "serious" about "doing something" about security.
And before you reply telling me how "the government needs to be in charge of airline security because airports or airlines are evil capitalist corporations and have no incentive to provide good security", and "getting rid of the TSA would be the end of the world and cause terrorists to blow up all our planes" - Please note that the top 19 of the 20 largest airports in Europe all use private security contracted by the airport to do airline screening, and have a much better security screening than the U.S. (so much for the stereotype of the "Socialist Europe" and "Free Market U.S.A."). Even terrorist paranoid Israel uses private airline screeners!
will they ban breasts, since they contain liquids, or will children be able to drink the natural way without restriction?
That actually leads to a very interesting question. Could terrorists who plan to commit suicide anyway implant a portion of, for example, C-4 in their stomach cavity? With a small enough detonator, the setup would be undetectable by current methods. Will we have to start imaging people themselves? Or, as suggested in many other comments to this article, will we realize that we need to fight this war with diplomacy and social change rather than high-technology and mass murder?
Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
what is stopping them from having a breast/butt implant that is full of explosives instead of silicone??? detonating with a timer or remotely... (heh, thinking a titty twister would set it off?)
sig goes here!
Perhaps they're not aware of the fact taht bombarding baby formula or breast milk with energy (like in a microwave) ruins it. There's a bright idea...
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
The plane isn't the target. Sure, if someone blew up an unoccupied airplane sitting in a hangar somewhere there'd be people mad about it - but as long as there's little danger to the common man, nobody but the insurance agent *really* cares. The true terror target is the people on the plane. Airplanes are effective since there's a few hundred people in a pretty confined space and those people have very little chance of surviving even a moderately successful attack.
So all these security measures will theoretically make it impossible to get anything dangerous on a plane, which is great. But it seems to me we've created another target with the same characteristics - the hundreds of people standing in a queue to go through the screening machines. In fact, there's probably more people in queue at rush times than there are on a single plane, and they're closer together. And there's no real defense since any non-instant bomb detection is sure going to result in long lines.
Kind of ironic that we spend all this time and effort to protect ourselves but wind up creating an even juicier target.
The real issue in this case is political, not scientific or technological. (See how the concept of a "suitcase bomb" is made fun of at "Wag the Dog" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/). This is the british part in the leatest Israeli-Arab disturbance. Israelis took over the military part, Americans took over the diplomatic part, and the poor British had to settle for the PsycOPs, the psycological operations. They have to spread FUD to make killings of innocent civilians (more then 800 were the children only) go down easily on world public opinion's throats. Has it been succesfull? Not really. The ceasefire restored the old status. Shame on them for the poor peoples' lives and damages they inflicted.
.. to stop posting articles about liquid explosives, or any other terrorist scare story the Government creates. We already know that some of these 'terrorists' didn't even have air tickets, or even passports, and some have already been released. The Government is either creating news, or blowing what little legitimate news there is completely out of proportion as a reason to impose more and more draconian 'security measures' upon us.
/. editors that next time they think about headlining a terrorism related article they consider the effect that the media over-reaction and pushing of Government spin has on the lives of each and every one of us, and also on future generations who may never know the meaning of freedom if things keep going the way they are. Don't be a tool for the Bush/Blair administration to leverage.
This is BS, and I for one would rather fly on a plane with a 0.0005% chance of being blown up than to have to go through all the security at airports today. I probably have more chance of being hit by a bus, and if you think about what happened here _intelligence information_ stopped this supposed attack, _not_ the screening procedures in place at the airports. Terrorism happened before 9/11, it will happen after 9/11. But it doesn't happen so frequently that it should cause any one of us particular concern. I request of the
Why ask how to detect liquid explosives anyway? Sure, it's nice if we can spot them, but real terrorists will find another way. What terrorist today would pack explosives in their shoes, for example?
Enough is enough. I would rather see some articles here summarizing the evidence behind and outcome of this and past terrorism news alerts by the Government, then maybe people would realize that we don't need to soil our pants each time this happens, and we can get some level of sanity back around airport security.
As someone living in the US with family in the UK, I currently don't want to fly home. It isn't because I'm scared of terrorists. It's because I'm scared of our Governments.
It's almost as though you can't stop terrorists with technology! What a crazy idea! It's as though the terrorists will always look for a weak point and exploit it. Thank god we're spending billions workin on ways to inconvenience ourselves. Perhaps we should spend those billions towards being nice to people. See if perhaps they stop trying to kill us. I'm just saying... We've exploited "making the terrorists hate as more" as a plan for defeating them. It can't hurt to try the opposite.
We live in a relativly free society. We don't have somebody tailing each of us and making sure we don't do anything bad. And because of that freedom, there are a nearly unlimited number of things someone could do, if they wanted to, that could wreak havoc on our society.
When you ride a train you are trusting in the fact that nobody has removed the rails and sold them for scrap, that nobody has dug the ties out from under the rails. And you also trust that the train company has people that inspect the tracks and the train regularly. We all trust these things without really thinking about it.
You could seriously injure someone with a well placed punch, anybody, anywhere could decide to suddenly do you bodily harm and you would be defensless against a surprise attack.
When you shake someones hand you have to assume that they didn't just give you a body contact virus like anthrax, when your in a bus you have to assume that nobody has just released a virus or pathogen into the air.
When your driving in your car you have to assume that the other people don't want to crash. Because all it would take for an average American to kill someone is just a flick of the steering wheel.
For a free society to exist, we have to believe in the fact that our fellow man isn't going to turn around and kill us the first chance they get. There is a basic level of trust in human beings that is necessary to function.
When that trust is eroded, things become very complicated and almost impossible to predict the results. There is one result you can count on always, that someone will always find a way to do something if they are motivated.
The weapons that people come up with in prison is no better proof of that. They make lighters out of salt water and copper wire, they make crossbows out of paper, you could stab a person to death using nothing more than a pen.
The only way to prevent these kinds of things in a free society is to try to uncover and stop the plan while it is still being formed. If they have made it all the way to the airport without being caught, then they are well prepared for any searches that might occur in security.
For instance, if a drug mule can carry pounds of cocaine in their stomach, and you send 5 mules and 3 of them are caught, 2 still made it onto the plane and arrived at their destination. And if someone can pack drugs in their stomach they can do the same with explosives....
I'm not saying it's useless to search people at the airport. I'm saying that it gives you a false sense of security, and mostly just harrasses and annoys regular people who now cannot bring a beverage on the plane and have to dump their carry on luggage.
If I was a terrorist and I wanted to cause a midair accident there are several things I could do if I didn't care about my own life. And if the security people are only looking for middle easterners I would use that to my advantage as well.
Even without bringing anything on board, a passenger could open a door in flight and cause the safety ramp to deploy.
They could wear clothes made out of highly flamable materials and start a fire in the lavetory.
You could use some natural toxins that would not show up in a bomb check like animal venom. Imagine what the sharp edge of a paperclip that was rubbed against a poison dart frog would do somebody.
You could re-tread your shoes with a plastic that is benign and would be undetectable under examination as being anything dangerous, but that is made out of a material that releases toxic fumes when burned.
You could get several people to bring relatively benign substances on board and cause a chemical fire, or common household products that when mixed can create chlorine gas.
Sugar is a good one since when mixed with a stabilizer and an oxidiser it becomes an explosive. Something as simple as salt peter and sugar mixed together becomes explosivly flamable.
Even without getting onto a plane you could find a covert way to place somethi
I always wondered what if a terrorist implanted an explosive device into their own body. All he would have to circumvent would be the metal detector. It can't be that hard to use nonferrous to make and explosive device.
I carry water on board even the shortest flight... generally at least 1 litre. Ever been stuck on a plane on the runway at JFK for 3 hours? I have, and they don't serve anything during that time. Ever been diverted to Milan and held on the apron for 2 hours? I have, and they don't serve anything during that time. And during all of these stops, they don't run the aircon, so you and the other hundred or so people in this sealed can generate a lot of heat, get hot and you sweat a lot. Water is essential.
:)
Ever been on an 11 hour flight and wanted a drink of water around 3am? Good luck getting anything from the crew on-board!
I've spent two hours on the apron at Heathrow when the flight itself was only scheduled to be 1.5 hours. And did we get any refreshment then? No.
Out of curiosity, how often do you make flights longer than 8 hours? I make about 4 a year and that's why I now carry water
Nothing is safe to take or have on a plane, because a determined terrorist can always McGuyver together a bomb or weapon.
Give it up, and disband the TSA. The only real solution is to make sure suicide bombers get caught more than they get through, and then make them *really* regret having tried it.
We have to bring back the vendetta to adequately deal with terrorism, and show that we're much better at it than they are. I won't make the obvious lurid suggestions of methods to take retribution - the key is simply to insure that whatever pain and terror we endure, the terrorist and his friends and family and neighbors consistently endure it 10 times over, and know very well that it came from us.
It's barbaric and cruel and utterly against everything our culture stands for - a perfect match for dealing with the primitive mindset of radical islamics.
Maybe someone with more of a background in explosives than me can answer this... How real was this threat? How many explosive compounds are there that meet the terrorist's requirements:
1. Look sufficiently like a regular liquid (the police don't seem to know if we were talking water or gel / paste here)
2. Be easily and quickly detonated with a primitive home-made detonator (camera flash was bandied about?)
3. Be able to carry enough onto a plane to cause significant structural damage without causing concern about the amount of this particular liquid that they are carrying.
Most of the explosives / high heat exchange chemicals that I am familiar with don't fit many of these criteria, let alone all, but I freely admit to being ignorant in this field.
God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural...fluids.
"Formerly we suffer from crimes; Now we suffer from laws."
-- Publius Cornelius Tacitus
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
-- Publius Cornelius Tacitus
"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
-- J. Edgar Hoover
"If you make peaceful change impossible...you make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods in human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
-- Ayn Rand
A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect.
Step 1: Set up a database.
Step 2: Log detected chemicals in database, periodically checking whether there is a combination of chemicals that might form a weapon if combined.
Step 3: If such a combination is found note persons holding the chemicals in question and investigate further. In case of suspicion, search hand luggage to confirm readings.
That way people can attempt to hijack the plane using acetone all they want (assuming that acetone is okay to bring) but if someone brings peroxide as well security can react - and if it wasn't peroxide at all we still have just inconvenienced a few passengers (of course if "investigate" means "perform a cavity search while yelling at them what stinky little terorists they are" we create an entirely new problem). If investigation is done sensibly this could be an area where false postives are accepted even by the people they inconvenience.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Whoever has kids can tell you how awful baby formula is. I'd puke on the TSA dude before I'm down with the bottle.
Honestly, if terrorist really wanted to get explosives onto a plane (a rather cliche and ineffective means of causing terror), they could simply do exactly what the drug mules do and hide them within their body, yes I understand that many explosives are poisionous as are many narcotics that are transported, but they could be contained easily and then extracted midflight, afterall it clearly does not take much to take down an aircraft. They can start scanning people with x-ray devices, but surely this will become an arms race where there is always a means to sneak past. Fortunately, it really seems that terrorists are really incompetent, I mean they are bombing airplanes, which is probably one of the most ineffective ways to cause terror, as opposed to how gang/military violence in the streets will really make a populace terrified to set foot outside. Honestly I have a bit of faith in our ability to counteract terrorists, however we often overreact to the percieved threat.
It sounds like you are supporting the War on Terror over the (needed) War on Car Deaths.
We've spent over 100 Billion Dollars on the war in Iraq. That's supposed to make us 'safer'. All it has done so far is killed and maimed more US Citizens than all the foreign terrorist attacks on the US put together!
Imagine what would happen if we spent that $100+ Billion on auto safety devices both in-car and on-road! Hell, that's enough to give every man woman and child in this nation $338 bucks!
All I'm saying is, maybe it's time to try a new tactic!
Blar.
... they were just going to turn up the heat inside the airport.
Pakistan have always been our allies.
We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It's not that surprising, considering liquid explosives, even dual liquid combinatorial explosives, were in use during WW II.
The most surprising thing is that the US appears to have forgotten about all those James Bond films from the 60s and 70s, where they use liquid explosives, hair spray, and various other common chemicals found virtually everywhere to make bombs and fire.
And, should you think the baggage is safe, I should point out that when I was a combat field engineer, who spent a lot of time blowing things up (way less exciting than you think), that even back in the 80s we were using time cord and even watches and alarm clocks to wire baggage to explode hours later, some using mechanical methods sealed in plastics. So it's not like checking your luggage will work.
Now, just stop living in Fear. Solutions abound, and your risk is far lower than you think. You're still in greater danger driving.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I was just wondering the same thing... What kind of statement do terrorists make by blowing up planes over the atlantic rather than something on the ground? What's the difference between doing that and blowing up the airport itself?
I just don't get the point. But then, we're talking about people who believe they get 7 virgins after blowing themselves up. (Hello! What good are 7 virgins if your penis is has been blown up to bits? And what if you're female? Do you get 7 male virgins?? WTF...)
I guess we can't look at this with any sort of logic, since logic is something these people seriously lack.
...strong mouth wash. acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Now you have two of the three ingredients. google for the rest.
this is lame. try to find any instances of this form of explosive used before. Like once maybe, it's too unstable and...stupid is the word. it's not even all that powerful. this is a SCAM to keep you terrorized by the government. And that airport scene? biggest buncha cows/herd animals in the world, mo-o-o-o-o-o-o-, go ahead, feel up my wife and daughter, yes, you can look up my ass, no problem officer friendly, you can make me dump my soda and my wife's expensive perfume out-we really didn't want it anyway. and thanks so much for providing us with seee-cure-it-tee against them tear 0 wrists! we feels so much safer now without our stuff and our dignity in the toilet! polish your jackboots, sir? o, here, take most of my cash with some tax increases, we need to pay you brave heroes salary!
this is called the heglian dialectic and I amazed so many people fall for it. a small handful of insane power mad "leaders" got millions and millions of people faked out.
you can only dictate to slaves!
check.
I believe precautions might deter casual thieves, but not people that are hellbent.
Let's say you know someone wants in your house though. Locking doors prevents the easiest form of entry. In comparison it was very easy to smuggle onboard liquid explosives before.
Now they've locked the door, and the people still want to get in... but they will have to seek out some other form of entry. It's become harder and while yes, they are hellbent, the harder entry also increases the chances of them being caught by needing to have more people in key positions or some other more complex way to get around security that may not be as sure to work. With complexity comes failure.
What do you think of bump keys? There's some videos on youtube of it. It almost seems like holding down the shift key to get into your house.
Yes I know all about bump keys - but you still have to have the right kind of key for the lock. So it's really not that much of a concern for a home owner in comparison to a store owner - that said I am planning to buy some of the higer end magnetic based locks for the home doors.
Even before bump keys though I knew how easy it was to pick a lock...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, the amount of TATP you could put inside a notebook battery wouldn't be enough to blow a modern jet out of the air, (unless you got really lucky). It's a decent explosive, but not that powerful, and not very dense (you couldn't get that much inside a battery). You also need a more-definitive trigger, since they make you open up laptops and boot them at many airports.
Wrong. Basic first-year explosives training involves how to use and create a shaped charge, and quite frankly, your tray table converts quite handily into a usable weapon, as would any standard men's belt. You just need to have a cover material to shape the charge (hmm, like the rest of that tray table with some easy pad inserts that stick on), slap it on the door, and you're inside the cockpit.
Look - the problem isn't that they're using liquid explosives - heck, both sides used them during WW II in certain situations - it's that they're well trained and know what they're doing.
The most effective way of stopping them is using this object called a "blanket" or a "coat" and shoving it on top of them and jumping on top, and stopping them from getting any closer. Any resulting explosion will go into the base of the plane, and only damage - at worst - minor steering to the tail - and there are redundant systems just for that reason.
Just stop worrying and if someone tries to assemble such a bomb, just throw a blanket on them, pummel them, and call for the stewards and stewardesses. That will solve the problem.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
the human brain. Only those who can pass a one-time background check should be allowed to use any form of public transportation.
Matches, wax candle, whale oil lamp, flint, ...
... because America in the 1940's had a far more realistic way to deal with tyranny: annihilate it mercilessly, including firebombing Dresden and killing every man, woman, and child in the city, and nuking 2 Japanese cities, resulting in the almost immediate unconditional surrender of Japan. And liberal gasps to the contrary notwithstanding, what do you know? Germany and Japan are far better behaved and far better off today - as is the rest of the world that no longer fears tyrannical governments there.
Tehran and dozens of other sites of completely irrational religious life-hatred are 5 years overdue for being nuked - and the consequences of that failure are ongoing ridiculous attempts to turn America into a police state, that will fail to deter terrorism but will certainly continue to strip Americans of liberties.
Domenstic flights are under different restrictions and levels of search than flights out of London, which I'll have to undertake shortly - I can carry a lot of stuff going over that is going to be found and discarded from Heathrow outbound.
Also they are not eliminated all carry-on, that was a stupid and temporary over-reaction. Already computers are allowed back on board as are most other carry-on items - just not liquids. I frankly don't mind as long as I am provided water by flight personell, because as I said we actually know someone wants to smuggle liquid explosives on a plane and some of them are not arrested. Imagine the outcry if no one did anything bug shrug and say "A few planes of people is no great loss". People would not stand for it. Personally I would actually be OK with that scenario as well as the chance of it being my plane is remote but then again that's rather unfair to the familes of those on planes that get hit.
If precautions are reasonable, and actually reduce risk, I do not mind them. Banning fingernail clippers and the like? That I will not stand for and I did complain long and loudly about the restrctions that had no practical effect on risk reduction - which to my mind includes lighters as well. There are many ways to produce fire so banning lighters has no practical effect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The simple answer is: No.
The more complex answer is: No, but it doesn't have to. There are no "seemingly innocuous" liquids (or, more general, "substances") that, when combined, form a feasible explosive. Explosives need an oxidizer (or be self-oxidizing, like nitroglycerin or TNT), and any substance with these properties is not innocuous, especially in the quantities needed for causing enough destruction to down the plane.
However, I wonder why no terrorist has brought two liters of hydrochloric acid on board. I would guess you can wreak quite some havoc with that, especially if you know where the vital control lines of the plane are.
*sigh* And I'll be flying to the States next month. What an experience to look forward to.
Doesn't anybody realize how explosive this can be? My daughter once shat her nappy in two!! Talk about a pyroclastic flow..
While I agree with the basic premise that looking to only your own family is a selfish and ultimately flawed course of action, the magnitude of insidious errors, exaggerations and downright falsehoods in your post totally eclipses that!
A large part of your post seems to be saying "As long as the outdated values of islam are being taught on a street near you, be very afraid" (And remember, terrorism is NOT an islamic virtue!!! I'll address the terrorism issue farther below).
The truth is though that ALL religions have aspects that seem outdated and abhorrent to western culture today. From forbidding contraception (catholicism) to encouraging polygamy and belief in impurity of darker skinned races (Mormonism) and that doesn't even take into consideration the KKK, Neo-Nazis and various death cults that keep popping up regularly.
All in all, Islam is a very benign religion (I Am Not A Muslim, but I grew up in a society where more than half the population were.) But like every religion it has it's extremists (KKK are christian too).
Then you talk about 9/11
Injustice is the nature of the people we're talking about - and the last time they had a country of their own to run, it was used as a financial and logistical operating base for the attacks that killed 3000 people and wrecked many times that many lives.
I take it you are referring to Afghanistan. (Even though technically, a large part of the financing would have come from Bin Laden's Saudi business interests - yet American business remains in bed with the rest of the Bin Laden family). You may not know it but most middle Eastern and many north African countries are actually "thiers to run" with many of them having very close and friendly ties to the west.
And when these same "Militant Afghan Muslims" had thier weapons pointed against thier other previous enemy (Soviet Russia) the west was only to happy to support thier cause!!
[or] ...that we shouldn't sweat Iran saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map"
If such statements are so worrying, how would you feel if you woke up one morning and heard your country was now considered part of a nefarious "Axis of Evil!!!" and the first country on that list was already being invaded!! (Oh sorry, ...liberated!!)
Would you
a.) Be thankful there is such a benevolent leader ready to raze countries to the ground for attempting to hold on to thier soveriegnity while loudly declaring thier innocence (which even after being proven true but didn't slow down the invasion). Or
b.) Immediately start building the necessary weapons to prevent your own invasion?
Is it really a coincidence that, soon after that speech, the other two countries involved began actively (and publicly) pursuing nuclear ambitions?
I am in no way condoning or supporting terrorism (even though one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - see South Africa - Nelson Mandela) but the kind of angry paranoia your article seems to be full of will only make the problem worse.
Hate begets hate! and vengeance is a cycle that never ends!
(What would you do if you were related to this family that was raped, killed then burned by American soldiers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5253160.stm ).
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
I used to work for a company that made bag handling systems for large scale airports. Part of these systems were of course various X-ray systems that could flag a bag as a potential bomb. These bags went to a special bomb chute, where they could be taken care of. In one particular system in southeast Asia this chute was just a small ramp that the "bomb" would slide down and then it would fall from approx. 2m height to the concrete floor. I guess that if it didn't explode on impact, the workers would just carry it to the plane :-)
...but flawed? Not at all!
Clear, concise, definite and thorough.
You are correct to realize that recognizing one who declares himself to be our enemy is not "fear" but is our reasonable duty to ourselves, to each other, and to our future (our children.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
I find is abhorable that such lax security measures have led this country to a situation wherein EVERY SINGLE PLANE is LITERALLY a bomb waiting to go off. Failings at every level of our government and incompetance on the part of the airline and aerospace industries contributed to the dire situation we now find ourselves in.
Indeed, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN is only minutes from dying because of this INVISIBLE and PERVASIVE threat to our national security.
I speak of jet fuel, of course. Were you aware that every single commercial plane being flown in this country relies on a vast tank full of highly combustible material? Their very design renders them noithing more than flying bringers of terror, death, and desolation for the entire country.
We must stand up for our security and demand that this negligent, irrational, and dangerous behavior be curtailed without hesitation. As Americans, we have the justified expectation that we will be safe from everything all the time and nothing bad will ever happen to us; if we lay down our right to militarily-enforced, surveillance-based peace, then who knows what rights may erode later. We may very well lose our right to shop at any number of national chain stores for our consummable household products and THAT, my friends, would be the death of the American way.
The solution is simple. Ban jet fuel. Lighters will be confiscated and destroyed. Ban any metal objects, to prevent the creation of sparks. Metal framed glasses and their lenses will be confiscated and destroyed, as they could easily be refashioned into a weapon. Food will cease to be provided on the grounds that biological elements would be easy to spread by a passenger who is a willing carrier of a devastation infectious disease.
There are no lengths we will not go to in order to ensure our ongoing sense of contentment and solitude. If you are not with us, you're with the terrorists.
> there's no such thing as a Muslim that doesn't believe, to the letter, what they believe.
I have a friend who converted so that he could marry his girlfriend. He is technically a Muslim, but really he's an Episcopalian. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you have said...
Hopefully he is aware of the punishments Muslim countries have for apostasy. He should think twice about travelling to Mecca.
Punishments? That's pretty retarded. But yes, I'm fairly sure he's been made aware of whatever he needs to know in case he goes to the area. His wife was born, and lived, in Jordan until about 6-7 years ago.
What I was trying to say was that it doesn't matter what you label yourself as, in their eyes. If you don't believe exactly what they believe, then you are not Muslim, and fit only for execution. And they decide what you believe, regardless of what you profess. So, even if the entire world was Muslim, it wouldn't stop them, because they'd soon find excuses enough to continue the killing. They won't be satisfied until everyone is dead--including themselves--because then there won't be any more unbelievers.
Now not allowing anything else onto the plane sort of stumped me. It does allow simple observation that that person is not carrying anything *in their hands*, but there are other, errr cavities, where material could be carried.
The not allowing *anything* on the plane was a TSA directive. For all other flights (not US-bound), passengers were allowed to buy things in the duty-free shops beyond the security checkpoint and bring them on the plane (except for liquids).
TSA totally freaked out, and wouldn't even let me take on a magazine I purchased (even though I had the receipt). They also went hardcore on security, doing a background check on every passenger while we waited on the tarmac for two hours. The funny thing: even though we were searched both by BAA and TSA agents, with a zero-tolerance policy for electronics, some still got by. When I stepped off the plane in the US, a few passengers whipped out their cellphones (you can guess where they hid them). So much for high-security.
BAA and TSA handled this crisis as well as they could, considering the circumstances...but if they keep this up for long, the long-haul airline industry will lose tons of money. Business travelers who have to deal with long security lines, delayed fligths, plus have to trust their luggage to the hold will think twice about face-to-face meetings. Vacationers who can't bring their mp3 players and gameboy for long international flights will reconsider their destination.
I know I'm not going to fly again anytime soon, I went through two days of hell just to get my ass home.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Someone willing to die blowing up a plane in the first place is obviously extremely determined. They're not worried about being 'caught' after the fact. They are already determined enough not to be deterred. They're simply not going to call the whole thing off because it's harder than it used to be.
The metaphor is not perfect to be sure. But the point is that even though they are not worried about being caught, by reducing avenues for entry you increase the chances of being caught - and with terorisst that is the primary concern because it stops the attack. Increasing the chances of being caught reduces the chance for a successful attack, how much can be debated but there is no denying it is some amount of protection greater than letting people walk on board with any liquid they please as was done before.
Obviously at some point you reach a plateu of risk reduction you should not cross - banning people with implants is one. But as I said increas of complexity means increase in opportunity to catch such people, after all impanting explosives is hard and then having a good method detonation is another hard thing on top of that.
I have no doubt someone will succeed again at some point. But the kind of mass events teorrists are looking to perform just got that much harder and thus less likley.
If you really are getting too annoyed with the rules around commercial air travel, the solution is to take other forms of transport or smaller planes (includng getting your own licence).
It would be foolhardy to ignore the low-hanging fruit of air travel risk reduction like banning most liquids when it's so easy to do so and alternatives (giving people liquids as teh board the plane) are so simple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
An explosion at cruising altitude should cause 100% fatalities, including the heaven-bound perp.
Actually, there's mostly one punishment. Death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
But yes, I'm fairly sure he's been made aware of whatever he needs to know in case he goes to the area.
Hopefully, he's aware that he needs to stay away from any place where anything close to Islamic law is in effect.
Put a bottle of liquid in a magnetic field and hit it with radio waves. You can pretty easily tell the difference between say, water and gasoline. And nitrogen (typical of explosives) has a pretty strong magnetic resonance too.
I wonder if it would be practical for airports though. You'd better put everything thru the metal detector before it gets close to the magnet...
I rather liked the idea another poster came up with. A choice between expensive hassle filled flights for those who are worried and less expensive no-hassles flights for the rest of us.
I like that idea as well as I would take the risk to avoid hassle and save on airfare, but I think from a practical standpoint suhc an airline would be doomed as all it would take is a few major incidents and no-one would fly it - look at the rough times the current airlines have convincing a lot of people to fly despite stringent security measures. I know a few people that after just hearing about this latest plot have decided not to fly anywhere for a long time, which is rather sad...
I know the current security measures themseves are also a deterrent to some, but overall I think a lot more people who don't fly are refusing to do so for other reasons unrelated to having to take your shoes off.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley