Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Istanbul Attack: A Grim Reminder Of Why Airports Are Easy Targets (firstpost.com)

Posted by msmash on from the weak-link dept.

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.

49 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. logic fail by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:logic fail by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem basically lies in the fact that you can drive a personal vehicle anywhere near the airport.

    2. Re:logic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem lies with airports are scary targets and not actually any more or less vulnerable than any large structure frequented by large numbers of humans

    3. Re:logic fail by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      The problem basically lies in the fact that people can be around other people.

    4. Re:logic fail by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "problem" is that in any reasonably-free society there will always be places where people can gather without having to be accosted by security goons first. This "problem" cannot be solved, nor should we try.

      If we do, we'd end up with a dystopian shithole akin to the one depicted the beginning of Half-Life 2.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:logic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was irrelevant because the issue happened outside the security perimeter

    6. Re:logic fail by lesincompetent · · Score: 2

      The problem is that people are just easily-penetrable-by-high-velocity-projectiles sacks of meat and blood.

    7. Re:logic fail by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. You can keep pushing the security checkpoints back and back and back from the central hubs, and while that may help in protecting the infrastructure, it does nothing to protect the people, since you're simply moving the weak point further away. As long as there are places where people bunch up, these sorts of attacks will be possible, whether with guns, bombs, toxins, or some other form of weapon.

      What "needs" to happen is that we do everything possible to keep people from bunching up in places where it's easy to bring weapons. The most obvious ways to do so are to provide more checkpoints (i.e. spread the load) and to modify the process so people get through faster (i.e. keep things moving), which, together, should mean that you never have a long line of people bunched up in an unsecured area. Unfortunately, adding more checkpoints means you're less capable of reacting to threats since you're more spread out, and speeding up the process means you're less capable of noticing the threats in the first place.

      Moreover, the reason I put "needs" in scare quotes above was because even if there was a solution to this problem at airports, we'd simply be pushing the problem off to other public venues, such as nightclubs, schools, college campuses, or public protests/rallies.

      Unless we go full dystopian, there's no way to prevent people from gathering, nor should we attempt to do so. What actually needs to happen is an understanding and acceptance of the risks, an aversion to treating these sorts of threats as bogeyman that demand disproportionate responses, and a cultural shift towards encouraging the assimilation of those on the fringe of the global community, rather than alienating them further.

      But the odds of any of those coming to pass in my lifetime are virtually nil.

    8. Re:logic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So true. I'm just thankful that the 'terrorists' think airports are the best places to attack. I rarely travel, but I always shop and consume. Of course, you ass clowns just keep blowing up places that do little to impact anyone's real economy and cause us to make our defense companies even richer. So let's not target where the defense company executives family members shop and congregate.

      Therefore, if they really wanted to spark outrage and cripple the 'western economy', those idiots would be blowing themselves up at a Kanye West or Taylor Swift concert, or a shopping mall, or a crowded movie theatre when some big movie came out. For instance, if they really wanted to do some damage, try opening day/night at a big movie theatre showing 'Finding Dory'.

      One guy inside presses the trigger and blows himself up right in the middle of the line inside just before they unhook the velvet rope and start taking tickets. Then a couple guys outside ready to detonate when the screaming masses come running out that didn't get shredded inside? Oh yeah. Just ONE incident like that will poke the skunk in a meaningful way.

      Just know this though - the moment you get smart and do that? The moment we all come down on you and your "I believe in the magic of Mohammad" religion like an anvil. As an atheist I have no care what your beliefs are - whether you believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus or Jesus I couldn't care less. But as soon as your beliefs begin to kill and maim other people for not believing the same way you do? We have a problem where literally genocide becomes a viable option.

      You moderate muslims have done little to nothing to curb your Jihadist extremists, so let this be a warning. By not taking hard and definitive action against your extremist brethren, eventually nobody will think to care whether you practice tolerance and love vs. harboring an extremist view. The word 'Muslim' will be all anyone needs to know before hunting you down and setting you and your silly-ass Quran written by a sexual pervert who treated women like property on fire and roasting marshmallows over your flaming corpse.

      "A moderate muslim doesn't want to kill you. A moderate muslim wants a radical muslim to kill you."

    9. Re:logic fail by kwbauer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " If guns were legal there, then no doubt the attack would have killed tens of thousands."

      Care to explain how a legal gun kills more than an illegal gun and how any man-potable gun kills more than the man-portable bombs that were used?

    10. Re:logic fail by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Airports are perfect targets for terrorist attacks. Especially airports with lots of international traffic. Mostly because that attack goes international that way and media all over the world report about it.

      If they blow up a mall in Istanbul, who'll care? The Turks, yes, but aside of that? Nobody. It's maybe a ticker note on CNN, but don't expect anyone outside of Turkey reporting about it.

      Hitting an airport means that you have a much higher chance to hit people from abroad, immediately taking the news to international level.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:logic fail by Gavagai80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's sick that you're using an article about yet another attack where the victims were mostly muslim, as are the vast majority of terror victims worldwide, to go on your bigoted rant about how muslims are guilty of not trying to stop terrorism. They're doing a heck of a lot more than you are about it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:logic fail by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I took the parent's statement to be mainly that domestically in the US (or anywhere), a couple people can easily kill a lot of people if they want to, without much in the way of special equipment, knowledge, or talent.

      Ultimately, for nerds, this comes down to a numbers game. How many people need to die to force "decisive" action? (By extension, how many need to die in one place.) Based on a BBC tally in April (IIRC), it was under 900 dead around the world. Let's double it and round up a bit, and say that 2,500 people are going to die at the hands of extremists per month, or 30k per year. With 7 degrees of separation, that means that someone you know has about a 2% chance of knowing someone who dies in a given year.

      If there is a 1:1e5 probability that any given person is an extremist/nutjob, then your best chance is limiting the amount of damage they can do, since you can't limit access to the knowledge or tools of destruction.

    13. Re:logic fail by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It really does make you wonder why the numerous soft targets like malls haven't been hit in the US, especially after Kenya.

      Around here, the sporting venues all do metal detectors and handbag searches, so in-the-event is a lot harder, but the side effect is a few thousand spectators jammed up in entry concourses.

      I wonder if we'll reach the point where the government will simply take over the entire process of getting to the airport.

      24 hours before your departure you will get a text telling you which specific pre-departure screening area to arrive at and what time to arrive. There will be a couple of dozen per metropolitan area and arranged so that there are no vulnerable crowds of more than 10 people. Assignment will be at random, no way to group parties traveling together. You will get pre-screened and inspected and then bused to the airport, which will be completely closed from the outside to the general public. Everything will be brought in by security contractors, including employees and airport supplies.

    14. Re:logic fail by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Like Erdogan acting like a madman didn't already accomplish that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:logic fail by ichthus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      white, Christian, perpetrator

      You sure about this? I tried to substantiate your claim for you, but the googles came up empty. I seems that James Holmes converted to Islam shortly after being imprisoned, though.

      --
      sig: sauer
    16. Re:logic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's sick that you're using an article about yet another attack where the victims were mostly muslim, as are the vast majority of terror victims worldwide, to go on your bigoted rant about how muslims are guilty of not trying to stop terrorism. They're doing a heck of a lot more than you are about it.

      Good work sucking up to the Islamophobiaphobia lobby. The victims both here, as well as elsewhere in Muslim countries where Jihadis are active, are more often than not collateral damage, as opposed to direct targets of the attacks. In Turkey's case, what is ironic is that that's a country that supports ISIS (where do you think all the ISIS volunteers go en route to Raqqa? It's Istanbul/Ankara/Gaziantep), since ISIS is also an enemy of the Kurds. At the same time, they do have to maintain a façade of being anti-ISIS for Western consumption, so there they go. GP was right. If Jihad was as unpopular among Muslims the way killing abortion doctors is among Christians, there is no way there would be that level of terrorism anywhere in the Mohammedan world, much less all of it.

  2. THIS DOESN'T MATTER! by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:THIS DOESN'T MATTER! by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Airports don't have the potential that an airplane does, but they are still critical points to hit. At certain times a successful hit could kill or wound hundreds or thousands. Severely damaging a major hub airport can and will cause major widespread impacts to business and leisure travel. Shutdown Heathrow for example and the air traffic impacts would be global.

      I'm honestly surprised they aren't attacked more often.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    2. Re:THIS DOESN'T MATTER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AND? You can say that about malls & since I'm in Las Vegas, casinos, the Strip etc. Under your logic anywhere that 'large numbers of people regularly go' is a 'viable target'. I actually don't disagree with that but it doesn't make airports MORE of a target deserving of any more security than any other place where 'large numbers of people regularly go'...but here's the thing. In a FREE society what the hell do you think you are going to do to actually stop this? Or make anything 'secure'.

      Push comes to shove, the only VIABLE response is:

      1) Mourn for the lost
      2) Keep doing what we're doing.

      If we do anything sufficiently robust as to stop attacks like Orlando or Istanbul than you are effectively making the world a 'police state'. Push comes to shove the only answer is to stop telling people the 'government will do something to protect you'...the government CAN'T. Promote 'individual safety & responsibility', and yes that means training individuals how to use guns & promote their 'concealed carry'. Getting people to learn to protect themselves properly & promoting gun carry won't 'stop what happens' entirely but it'll make this acts less likely to occur & less harmful when they do occur. If these yahoos who have no respect for life walk in to an airport/mall/etc. where everyone else is as ready to fight & die as they are, chances are they'll go somewhere else (or not do it at all).

      Ultimately I'm promoting the 'Switzerland model' but even more so, not the part where you have to 'join the military' for some period of 'mandatory service' but rather at a minimum needs to be trained on proper gun usage & safety in highschool, trained how to shoot, practice regularly etc. with 'grades' for 'passing the course', and I leave it only open as an 'option' for an individual to buy & carry a gun after the age of 18 (e.g. at the age of majority I wouldn't 'force' someone to do this). Heck, if there's a 'declared war' we expect everyone to pick up a gun & go fight (e.g. WWI & II...conscription), this would still be 'expected' to some extent if it came to that so why wait? Train everyone now (at the 'appropriate age' I'm not talking 5 year olds), teach people that they have a 100% responsibility for the life & actions in protecting it. That is the only way to 'combat nut jobs'.

      At some point apparently people got the belief that we live in a 'civilized society' where we're all secure & the government will otherwise 'protect us', that has never been true, ever.

      Ok. this little rant is over.

    3. Re:THIS DOESN'T MATTER! by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And we can lessen the likelihood of that happening successfully by shortening those lines. We do that by ensuring that all the checkpoint lines are always open and by reverting the screening process back to what it was pre-9/11, which is all that is necessary now that all airliners have solid locking cockpit doors. There is no reason to pat down everyone passing through the checkpoint, or make us all take off our shoes; just x-ray our bags, pass us through a metal detector, and save the body searches for special cases. We had the actual security issue solved before the TSA was fully staffed; we don't need them and we never did.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. It's the security line, stupid by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. The TSA increases the risk. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:The TSA increases the risk. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      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.

      Yes and no. They may be able to kill a similar number of people, but the amount of damage would be negligible compared to flying a large plane full of fuel into a structure. However, it would be pretty difficult to kill as many people as were on 9-11. That would take a lot of people with bomb vests that would need to go unnoticed. Probably more than could be done logistically without something going wrong.

    2. Re:The TSA increases the risk. by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      The thing that made 9/11 so terrifying to so many wasn't the number of people or damage but that everyone stopped and watched it happen right on their TV all at the same time.

      I was in college at the time and students, professor, administrators, etc... all stopped in the commons and watched it right there. Classes where canceled and everyone took the day off without notice, they just watched and there was nothing any of them could do.

    3. Re:The TSA increases the risk. by jcr · · Score: 2

      the amount of damage would be negligible compared to flying a large plane full of fuel into a structure.

      That will never happen again, because people now know that "just do what the bad man says" is not a viable survival strategy. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were both thwarted by a swarm of the people they were trying to kill.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  5. REAL safety requires a different approach. by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:REAL safety requires a different approach. by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      I don't think it is quite accurate to describe what the Thuggee did as "ritual murders". What they actually did was much simpler: they would infiltrate a group of travelers, kill them, and take the loot. That makes them murder/robbers and any ritual they displayed is really neither here nor there.

      No where's my tobacco?

    2. Re:REAL safety requires a different approach. by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope to God (or Goddess) that you know that what you're referring to is fiction

      What's your next guess?

      Note in particular, the section on how the Brits took them out.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  6. Re:Hmm by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nor is it on Wired, TechDirt, Gizmodo, TheVerge, etc.
    ( Hint: Because general news like Jihiadi-Bob blowing themselves up or shooting up a bus full of nuns really isn't what those sites typically report on )

    It would be had the attackers used some interesting technological method to carry out their attack. Readers of sites like /. are interested in the what
    and the how, not the why. You want the why, CNN, Fox or any number of other sites will be full of theories I'm sure.

  7. Could have occurred anywhere... by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Could have occurred anywhere... by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      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).

      Considering Turkey's government is being more and more Islamic, and the attack has indeed been credited to IS or supporters of the group, adds a nice level of irony to your statements: Muslims attacking a Muslim country for being Muslim.

    2. Re:Could have occurred anywhere... by doconnor · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the ISIS belief system, being the wrong kind of Muslim is the worst thing you can be, worse then believing in some other religion.

  8. Re:Hmm by desdinova+216 · · Score: 2

    what about Constantinople?

  9. Unless you screen like the Israelis by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.
    1. Re:Unless you screen like the Israelis by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

      You might want to think about this possibility, that certain things are allowed to happen.
      Think about who benefits from the increase in FEAR.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Unless you screen like the Israelis by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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 Orlando shooter was born in the United States.

      The guy in Orlando was reported to the FBI directly by people twice for being a dangerous psychopath. And response? Nada.

      The response was they investigated him twice. However, you have to prove that he is a dangerous psychopath before you can anything more. You can't simply throw a person in jail -- or exile a U.S. citizen from the country (however you propose to do that) -- because they watched bad videos and/or their coworkers say they're tied to multiple terrorist groups that, incidentally, totally hate each other.

      On the other hand, you've just made a veiled threat of violence ("Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps"), so I suppose it's time to report you to the FBI and demand a response. No reason for your individual liberty to outweigh the risk of another McVeigh.

    3. Re:Unless you screen like the Israelis by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Multiculturalism is a dangerously naive ideology. Just because you love people that are different from you doesn't mean that they will reciprocate and respect your way of life.

      The globalists are driving this crisis. They import workers from alien cultures who do not integrate with society and push for open borders; literally the destruction of a nation. They target the young and foolish and convince them that they should support these actions because it's the "right" thing to do. If you're opposed to their agenda and want to preserve your heritage, well that just means you're an awful racist!

      The day after the Brexit vote NPR interviewed some young people that were just wailing about how the old people had ruined their futures by voting for Nationalism and not Globalism. Totally clueless that they're being used by the elites in an attempt to consolidate their power. Now there's talk of EU members being forced to give up their own armies in favor of an "integrated" EU army?!

    4. Re:Unless you screen like the Israelis by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      They don't love people that are different to them. They demonsterably don't like their own neighbors based on minor ideological differences. So that is not the objective of multiculturalism. The point is to break down the existing culture by flooding it with variant moral and ideological positions. Then once that has been broken down they presume to indoctrinate the new cultures into conforming to THEIR ideology which is a singularity.

      That is the point. If they actually believed in tolerating other cultures then they'd tolerate their domestic political rivals based on the political and ideological differences there in... but they don't despite the differences being largely cultural. Its a scam.

      People need to stop assuming people in politics have good or noble or honest intentions. They often do not. We do not assume this in business. We do not assume this in finance. We do not assume this in science. We do not assume this really anywhere but in politics. And of all the places where people would accept "just trust me" as an argument... I really can't think of a worse place to do that then in politics.

      No. Do not just trust people when they say they are doing X for Y reasons. Verify it and place balancing automatic responses and defenses in place in the event that they were doing X for Z reason instead of Y. We do this in banking. We do this in law enforcement. We do this in business. We do it in science.

      The "just trust me" argument is fallacious. I will not just trust anyone. And when they say they want multiculturalism for X reason... and X makes no sense... and X is contradicted by their other behavior... I'm going to assume that they want it for some other reason. Then I'm going to look at how tireless they are at pushing it. If they want it and want it bad then I'm going to assume its important... and not for X reasons. So why push it and want it that much when the stated reason for it is false?

      And I don't have to look that hard. When this was initially being pushed in the 1970s the people doing it sold the idea to their political allies on the basis that they could gain political power by doing it. They could import voters to drowned out their political rivals. That is what Ted Kennedy said on the issue. Other quotes from other relevant players in this game from all over the western world of that time period can be cited to validate the argument.

      The want MCism for crass political power. Period. Now the common rube on the street might not be that sophisticated. But since he's not worked out any of the details he's just a drone at this point. He doesn't even know why anything is happening or why anything is being cited as good or bad. He's a tool at best. So his opinion on the matter is a distraction. he'll believe what he's told to believe... demonstrably.

      What is relevant is why is MCism being pushed in the first place. And as cited above... its not hard to figure out if you pay attention.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  10. On that note by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:On that note by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (Meaning: we should keep an eye on this, it might be a terrorist attack.)

      No, we should stop rewarding the negative, attention-seeking behavior with attention. It won't stop immediately and, in fact, will probably get worse in the short-term, but when it stops having the desired effect, it will stop.

      The point isn't to kill as many people as possible, it's to strike fear into the hearts of those who survive. Stop paying attention to "potential terror attacks" like a scared dog and the attacks stop having the desired effect and become pointless.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  11. Not all airports -- not Ben Gurion by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not all airports -- not Ben Gurion by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you describe is fairly similart to what I experience there 2.5-3 years ago. The main difference was that they would only go through your carry on luggage and they would dump it out on a table after it had been X-rayed. They also made you keep your your checked luggage with you for about as long as possible. You brought it over to the X-ray machine, you picked it up on the other side of the X-ray machine and you then brought it over to finally be checked only after it was approved. If there was a problem or question you instead brought it over somewhere else while guards watched you open it in-front of another screener who would ask you about the item in question. You would then retrieve the item and they would ask you more questions about the item. In my case it was my old metal bodied film SLR and metal bodied lenses. As I was a guest of the government all the times I went I didn't get the full Q&A session as I had previously provided a detailed listing of my activities while there that was already checked and approved by other government officials. The questions they ask seem to be to see if you stumble or get tripped up. When questioned about my camera the questions where in quick succession asking where I got it, how long I had it, etc. and at the end if it took better pictures than digital ones.

      Other things of note is at each stage they do little things to keep people moving and they also have many checkpoints in parallel so that there isn't a big pile up in one spot. You know the exact opposite of what the TSA does.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  12. Re:Hmm by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

    But the reality is that incidents like this are almost an everyday occurrence. We're averaging about one terrorist incident per day this year (see a month-by-month breakdown), including shootings, suicide bombings, and vehicular attacks. Several a month have comparable death tolls to this latest Istanbul attack. It just isn't a big enough event to warrant it being on slashdot; non-tech "stuff that matters" can't be stuff that happens every day. If the death toll was in the hundreds, then maybe.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  13. Re: We just needed a good guy with a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually it did. A cop shot one of them before he could do anything. Try again troll.

  14. Re: Hmm by Zak3056 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The question is does the subject matter to enough folks to report on it. Especially if it isn't in line with what the site typically reports on.

    AFAIK, the most commented post in the history of this site only "mattered" to two people: Taco and his (soon to be) wife. Your argument has been hashed and rehashed for almost two decades at this point, and the answer continues to be the same: "don't like it? don't read it." Don't like political stories? Then turn them off. Don't like posts from certain users? Set them as foes and give them an automatic -6. Don't like that the character of the site is, in general, USA centric? Tough shit, it's a US based site with US based administrators (I refuse to use the word "editor) and its character reflects that.

    Simple idea: if it's such a burden to read about people getting blown up overseas, don't click the story. Don't write a post about it. If it's wasting your time, then why the hell are you wasting your time?

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  15. Re: Hmm by Matheus · · Score: 4, Informative

    It'll always be good ole Byzantium to me!

  16. Re: Hmm by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 2

    It's all about entitlement. People seem to think that everything should conform to their tastes instead of them expending any effort to look somewhere else.

  17. Re:There ya go... by brewthatistrue · · Score: 2

    Hey thanks!

    I searched the page for "religion" and "Christian" but not "church."

    Reading the articles, it's unclear whether he was actively attending this church.

    > Borgie recalls a proud, intelligent boy who was determined to go to graduate school. He last spoke with the suspect about six years ago. The pastor says the family has belonged to the San Diego church for about 10 years.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20...

    via

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    and

    http://www.reuters.com/article...

    via

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    It may seem like splitting hairs, but the question is was his Christianity motivational for his murder or merely incidental? Did he cite Christian scripture as his justification? Did he commit murder at the promptings of his pastor?

    These are the comparisons which should be emphasized when drawing parallels to mass shooters who were actually motivated by their faiths.