Slashdot Mirror
Istanbul Attack: A Grim Reminder Of Why Airports Are Easy Targets (firstpost.com)
An anonymous reader shares a FirstPost article:Even as I write this the echo of gunfire continues at Ataturk International Airport. For reasons that defy logic, Istanbul's main airport has always been seen as a vulnerable target which only underscores the fact that all airports in the world are open to attack and fail-safe is not a viable option. At Ataturk, security is usually high, but the weak underbelly lies in vehicular traffic entering the airport being given cursory checks, pretty much like most airports which is why President Erdogan was able to say this sort of attack could have occurred anywhere. That is true. Airports are easy targets. That even though Turkey was aware of the chinks nothing much was done to up the security levels. If you take Delhi International as a prime example, the access to the terminal is scarcely blockaded and one can reach the entry points with ease, crossing a couple of indolent checkpoints and a roller fence. (Editor's note: the article has been written by an Indian author, and so he uses an Indian airport as an example.) Indian airports are as porous as a sponge. Most of our airports are red-starred which places them in the inadequate category. Add to that the fact that several thousand VIPs are given privileges that make a pudding out of security and it indicates how easy peasy it would be to amble up to the terminal entrance. The weakness primarily lies in the absence of X-Rays and deterrent technology on approach. You practically can check in and get to immigration before being cleared for hazardous material.
Do the slashdot editors realize there has not been any coverage of the actual Istanbul attack on slashdot?
"The weakness primarily lies in the absence of X-Rays and deterrent technology on approach. "
No. Adding xrays just moves where people will be lined up.
Look, if you make all airports safe from terrorist attack, the terrorists attack malls, or office buildings, or schools. So making airports safe from terrorist attack is something only a MORON does. It isn't worth it.
Airports are not particularly important, the way that airplanes are.
The danger with planes is not that they are connected with air travel, but that there is little difference between a airplane and a guided missile. A guided missile that the terrorists did not pay for and could not afford, but can be used to attack another buildings.
Any idiot that tries to protect airports from generic terrorists attacks is a fool, wasting our money because they have no idea of the difference between a high priority target and a low priority one.
Airplanes are high priority targets and need to be protected. Airports are low priority targets that should not be heavily protected, except to prevent people from gaining access to the planes.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
No matter how far from the airport you put the security, if there is a crowd in line outside that security point, it's vulnerable to attack. The only way to make this impossible is to have a sufficient number of checkpoint personnel that there is never a line. Which is expensive. Too bad.
"easy peasy"
"amble"
Millenial "journalist" sounds millenial.
Just look at SFO or ORD on a busy holiday weekend. The useless TSA clowns make people stand in serpentine lines with hundreds of people all bunched up waiting to take off their shoes and belts and spread their legs for the obedience ritual. A perp could easily get to the center of that mass of people and do just as much damage as they could by crashing an airplane.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
To bring down a murderous nut-cult, you have to do what the Brits did to the Thuggee. You have to infiltrate them, identify their leaders, and kill them. If the Brits had been worried about offending the peaceful worshippers of Kali, India would STILL be plagued by ritual murders today.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Places where lots of people gather are easy targets. Who knew?
President Erdogan was able to say this sort of attack could have occurred anywhere.
Well, technically it could have occurred anywhere. But it really helps people to target you if you are working towards a totalitarian state, with an emphasis on religion no less. Also, if you consider an oppressed minority as "terrorists" for long enough, don't be surprised when they start acting like terrorists (although the Kurdish militants usually have government-related targets - so this looks more like the "classic" IS terrorists).
The weakness primarily lies in the absence of X-Rays and deterrent technology on approach.
Yeah, Einstein, and when they target the queues behind those X-Rays machines, we will add new machines at a 5km distance... and when they target THOSE queues, we will....
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
When the Orlando shooting happened, the right-wing talking heads were real quick to pull "OMG ALL MUSLIMS" (or variations on said theme), and they're not saying much of anything about this one.
Because radical Muslims killing other Muslims breaks that stereotype of "All Muslims are bad, mmmkay?" I mean, clearly, the fact that these terrorists are targeting people of the same religion... we can't spread that around, it might make people think that "holy shit, it's actually not about religion."
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I can't understand the focus of increasing security in airports, or at train or bus stations. Hospitals, shopping malls, places of worship are all even more porous as far as targets go and most people frequent them far more often than getting on a plane. As a consultant that's not the case for me, but I'd still like to see security streamlined (largely removed) at airports.
So why all the focus on travel? Because increasing government security at these points allows control and tracking of its citizens. It has little to do with actual safety...
... Society is becoming increasingly uninhabitable because some people can't seem to get it through their heads that a society is not just a question of whom you allow in but whom you do not allow in. All these assholes are getting flagged by the intelligence agencies and no one does anything because they don't want to appear racist. The guy in Orlando was reported to the FBI directly by people twice for being a dangerous psychopath. And response? Nada. Keep it up. You're just winding the political rubber band tighter and tighter. Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps.
I know I know... an endless procession of troll ACs are going to tell me what a bad person I am for pointing out the fucking obvious. Keep it up, chumps. You're just doubling down on stupid at this point.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Until the government and media will stop being politically correct and admit that Islamic doctrine is the root cause of terrorism, no progress will be made. Mohammed is Islam's example of the perfect man to mimic in every aspect of life and at all times. Mohammed was a conqueror and taught the doctrine of jihad. Islamic jihad won't end until the whole world converts to Islam or is dead. I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps a reformation like what Christianity went through.
Number one weakness in the US is the Screening point. These three bombers visit any major airport at peak travel times, wait until they are well into the queue and then detonate and you have hundreds dead without firing a shot. They decide to shoot even deadlier results because those with guns are blocked away from them by the mass of people lined up waiting to be screened. Then there is the liquid limit which requires large trash cans right next to the lines, trash cans full of bottles of random liquids, that just might decide to blow up. Once through security it's a bit better because most people in there have been screened to some degree.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
That would've stopped them!
The surest way to stop terrorist attacks is live and let live, even if the other side choose to slaughter their own. Pretending that bombing them into democracy will make a difference or that it will stop the slaughter is historically untrue. And just let peoples deal with their own government, even if it stinks to Western noses. As the War on Terror has demonstrated, the first victims of foreign wars are the people within, whose liberties are abridged and the wealth diverted to the war machine and oppressive apparatus.
Recall that about 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, train tracks were sabotaged in this country, which derailed and crashed a train. The perpetrators left a note at the scene, but AFAICT were never caught.
And note that we're currently putting the fire out in a train crash somewhere in the Texas Panhandle, but the cause hasn't yet been determined. (Meaning: we should keep an eye on this, it might be a terrorist attack.)
Lots of US infrastructure is wide open and vulnerable to terrorist attack, yet we spend enormous effort on security theatre at the airports. Our governments implement a massive spying apparatus with the excuse that it combats terrorism, but they don't bother to infiltrate groups that are likely to do it.
And the people they manage to catch with surveillance are sad losers who couldn't manage to pull off the attack without FBI urging and guidance.
We do security theatre very well in this country.
Just 'sayin.
When you fly out of Israel's Ben Gurion Airport (at least when I did 10 years ago), you first have to stop at a Godfather-style tollbooth about a mile from the terminal. There, about four soldiers with automatic surround your car while a fifth sticks a mirror on a big pole underneath, looking for bombs. I think they looked inside the trunk too. Once you get to the main terminal, before you can enter the doors, you're stopped by another armed soldier who asks you what you're doing there, where you are headed, etc. All the while, they're looking at you to see if you appear suspicious in any way. Once inside, you go through more traditional security, except you have to open your bags and show them everything you have. They're specifically interested in asking you about anything you bought in Israel, who you got it from, where, etc. All the while, the security folks are comparing notes. If there's something wacky or suspicious about you or your story, then that triggers additional "interrogations."
Since the Lod massacre in 1972, Israel has not suffered another terrorist attack against their airports or planes because they decided to take real precautions to prevent them. The rest of the world (for now) chooses not to follow their model.
What happened? Did he give Daesh too many weapons and is now upset they are biting the hand that fed them during their formative years? Since the enemy of my enemy is my lover, shouldn't Erdogan be embracing the Kurds. If he had a strong, friendly Kurdestan on his border instead of those naughty Daesh, he'd have less to worry about. Erdogan doesn't want that because then he'd not have a reason to kill off democracy in Turkey. If we took off his skin, we'd find Putin underneath. And underneath Putin's skin we'd find Erdogan....an infinite descending chain of Russian matryoshka dolls that would end in Dante's 7th level for the Turks and the Russians.
Airports are not "easy targets". They are about as guarded as a "target" can get. Consider that the Istanbul attacks (with three bombers) only killed about 40 people, which is fewer than one radicalized maniac with a gun in a nightclub in Orlando.
There are a few reasons why airports are selected:
1) The "glamour" of the attack created by attacking a prestigious (and relatively well-guarded) target. And it is bound to elicit tons of media attention.
2) Airports are large, meaning that there is the potential for a large number of casualties. (Although the *density* of people in an airport is generally not nearly as high as in a nightclub, etc.)
3) Airports are generally filled with the upper middle class or upper class, who are more likely to be "blamed" by terrorists for their problems than the lower-class who have no power.
4) Attacking an airport causes a huge amount of havoc and has great economic impact because flights have to be diverted, departures get cancelled, etc.
5) Tradition. Airplanes and airports have been targets for a long time.
It's worth noting that most of the memorable terrorist attacks in the West recently have not been in airports. E.g., Paris, Boston Marathon bombing, San Bernardino, the Orlando shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting.
Contrary to the headline, airports are not comparatively easy targets. At least in the West.
In any case, fuck anyone who would make *anywhere* a target.
airports are equipped to sort out hijackers and shoe bombers. they prevent you from taking out 300 people plus collateral casulties on the ground with box cutters or .22 handguns.
the security plan is to keep the rabble out of the service and departure areas, and from running across the runway with signs. this forces them out to the perimeter and outside.
that's all that billions and billions of dollars, plus allowing people to actually get in, get on planes, and go elsewhere, can do. a van full of nutbars could do the same thing in Tel Aviv, even though security on El Al is tighter than that to see the Prime Minister.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
and terrorists only seek to use one in a public place as they can get their schytte together to glorify in their cause. they have taken malls, finish lines of marathons, and opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Atlanta to do... nothing concrete.
if they would just settle down, elect a government, get into the UN, derive treaties, and become suits pushing their agenda, they would get someplace. this bang-bang blow-em-up does not affect any countable number of people directly, just the hundred or so in the gunsights.
my chances of dying from a falling star are greater.
screw 'em.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
And here if a person wanted all they eould need to do is fill a bus full of anfo and go full bore for the airport since the lines are two hours and terrorism is about maximizing collateral damage.
But please, explain how x-rays will stop this from happening.
Well, I've read news articles fairly regularly about how high-ups are getting taken down, however the problem in general seems to be that they're easily replaces. Hell, we've even traded one terrorist organisation (Al Quieda) for another (ISIS), so I'm not really sure that there's anything centralised enough to take out.
Hell, even if there were mostly gathered together in some small country and you dropped a bomb on the whole thing, that wouldn't solve many of the recent issues as they've been perpetrated by radicalised locals, and not foreign visitors/immigrants.
Look, some of us have CTO experience. Bunching people up in long lines before they pass through security screening is just asking for an attack.
Excessively slow screening is also a major problem.
You're doing it wrong. The real risk factor is the insane added security theatre, which actually makes you all more at risk.
Do it in stages. Screen people getting off the transit systems, don't allow vehicles near where people concentrate, and stop with the stupid long lines that wrap around themselves. Putting 500 people in a small space before the actual security check is just an Epic Fail no matter what your excuse for it was.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Perhaps it might be useful to examine motive. I wonder...could there be a war going on somewhere nearby? Is Turkey involved in a conflict? Maybe there is some underlying issue that needs to be addressed. Could be a lot cheaper than piling on infinite 'security measures'.
Wait is the problem not the guns this time?
maybe dems should do a sitin to rob America of civil liberties because of this attack too?
I like to be sure I can understand the faux rage
I guess people have to stop believing war "makes us safer" and that war "saves lives". Guess what? We're finding out the reverse is true. Big damn surprise.
It's been a HALF DECADE, flying frighteningly fast since like half the countries in the region have pursued some stupid scheme to try to get the president of Turkey's neighbouring country killed. Stop trying to make Syria "safe" from itself. You've "save lived" from the brutal tyrant's claws enough.
Dumbfucks.
What if this happened in say the US, perpetrated by Canadians and their Alaskans and Greenlandic sympathizers?, while the US, France and Britain try to get the Canadian prime minister killed and keep sending weekly container ships of weapons to Canada.
Well, after five years try to stop doing stupid shit like that.
Your Canadians and Alaskans happen to spill over and do whatever they've been used to do for so long but in an inconvenient place, that's all. And Russia is sort of barely holding a portion the mess, working with the Canadian military, at the invitation of the Canadian governement. They were across Sarah Palin's house, afterall.
Destroying stuff is always easy. People are easily panicked and the media stokes that panic at every turn. If terrorism was a real problem that killed more than a handful of people then we should focus on it. As it stands far more people are killed by mundane yet far more likely events like car accidents and medical mistakes. Yet we obsess over statistically unlikely events like terrorism or mass shootings. Think of it this way - the police kill far more people per year than the terrorists. I wish the funding for problems was in direct proportion to the number of deaths and injuries the problem causes each year. Then we could drop the "War on Terror" and focus on real problems.
I expect our Senators and Representatives to hold a sit-in protesting their vile actions in Turkey.
has he shot anyone ? so yes lets all take his word for it.
....we can refer to any item in any manner we want. So there.
...the Palestinians and the rest of Islam should not have illegally stolen the Jews land millennia ago? Ever though of that?
As soon as the technological means are there, universal surveillance will happen. One thing that human beings want is security, and we know from psychological studies that large population groups will put up with inconvenience - even punish themselves to some degree, financially, socially, etc. - to assure personal safety. Given that universal surveillance is going to happen, we need to start looking for ways to make it transparent, to prevent abuse. Nobody is talking about that; nobody is considering the possibility that universal surveillance might be more a good thing (with problems) than a bad thing (which everyone always assumes it will be, without qualification).
....Saudi Arabia. Sanctioned religious bigotry.
He attended Penasquitos Lutheran Church with his family, according to the church's pastor.[21][22]
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
"it indicates how easy peasy it would be to amble up to the terminal entrance. The weakness primarily lies in the absence of X-Rays and deterrent technology on approach. You practically can check in and get to immigration before being cleared for hazardous material.
"These gunmen just strolled up to an entry point and began firing randomly into the crowd.
No matter where the security scanning checkpoints are, there will always be queues of people waiting to go through them. This will always present a soft target.
You mean the places that congregate people, are places where terrorists can get an insanely high body count with little effort or ability to stop them?
Fix This http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Casteism
We see you have again admitted defeat by trying to make the claim that the other person is not arguing in good faith. You keep playing this "your definition" card as if it means something. All it means is that you can't keep up with the discussion, kid.