Istanbul Attack: A Grim Reminder Of Why Airports Are Easy Targets (firstpost.com) 307
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.
logic fail (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.
Re:logic fail (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem basically lies in the fact that you can drive a personal vehicle anywhere near the airport.
Re:logic fail (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
Re: (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 thems
Re:logic fail (Score:5, 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.
Re:logic fail (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Like Erdogan acting like a madman didn't already accomplish that.
Re:logic fail (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.
Re:logic fail (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:logic fail (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:logic fail (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. If we were covered in armour-plate, that would just have meant that whatever we used to hurt each other would be designed to penetrate armour-plate.
There is no such thing as absolute safety. It is not achievable in the real world, and never will be.
But just remember, it could have been much worse. If guns were legal there, then no doubt the attack would have killed tens of thousands....
Re:logic fail (Score:4, 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?
Re:logic fail (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Not just checkpoints - it's the ticket counter, check-in, and baggage drop areas that are vunerable. That won't be fixed because it would cost money and reduce airline profits.
Quite right. I was (rather foolishly, in retrospect) misusing the word "checkpoint" with the intention of referring to anything and everything of this sort. I should have been clearer on that topic, so thank you for the clarification/correction.
that's not what airports are designed for (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was irrelevant because the issue happened outside the security perimeter
Re: (Score:2)
But that would make me look fat!
THIS DOESN'T MATTER! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Depends on what the goal of the attacker is -- it's unlikely that any terrorist will be able to duplicate the 9/11 attacks due to better cockpit security and procedures (and 200+ passengers on the plane that are unwilling to be used in another 9/11 attack).
But if the attacker wants to shut down country-wide (or global) air travel (which would have huge global financial impact), then all they have to do execute a few attacks against crowded security lines and all air travel will stop when governments are for
Re:THIS DOESN'T MATTER! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Airports are low priority targets that should not be heavily protected, except to prevent people from gaining access to the planes.
Not if the planes aren't your actual target. If what you want to do is generate fear and terror then blowing up or attacking an airport is a perfectly feasible way of getting what you want.
Anywhere people congregate is a viable target in that case, even blowing up sparsely-populated parts of a terminal could be effective. If you knew that there was a good chance that the airport was going to be bombed, shelled, or flooded with poison gas, how eager would you be to go to the airport?
So yeah, planes are a fin
Re: (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 s
Re: (Score:2)
On that note (Score:5, Insightful)
Recall that about 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, train tracks were sabotaged [philly.com] 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.
Re:On that note (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that sentence only works in a vacuum and in practice we fuck it up. Examples on the top of my head:
- The surveillance must be legal, not today's clusterfucks and dragnets, get a warrant where necessary
- POIs should be scrutinized during their window, and the scrutiny NOT parceled out. We have enough allegation bullshit, a SUPERFLUOUS, abundance-of-caution lookout should NOT get his name highlighted in red for every database betw
Re:THIS DOESN'T MATTER! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm honestly surprised they aren't attacked more often.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly surprised they aren't attacked more often.
There aren't enough terrorists. Really. No matter what what some politicians (both in the US and Europe-well, Europe for now) and media groups try to portray, there aren't hordes of terrorists heading for our borders or walking down your street right now. The actual number of people that believe in something enough and are willing to carry out attacks like this is incredibly minuscule. Of the small number of people actually willing to undertake attacks like these, most of them don't even have the capabi
Re: (Score:2)
If Islamic countries won't let these people in because they'll cause terrorism, then w
Re: (Score:2)
Airports don't have the potential of jack compared to most things. If you are actually hitting it to significantly impact operations... you got enough firepower to take DOWN much richer targets like skyscrapers, docks, cargo freighters, rail, football game, concert, government buildings, malls, etc. And I am not talking about the idiots who _decide_ to close down all of Heathrow because one of the terminals caught fire. That's just playing it overly safe. An entire terminal in Heathrow could lose power
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd argue that an airport is a bigger target than an airplane. A terrorist is highly unlikely to duplicate 9-11 again with a hijacked airplane. That chance ended once people realized that a hijacking didn't mean "sit down, shut up, go to Cuba, and get released" anymore but instead meant "fight back or you have a 100% chance of crashing into a building and dying."
With an airport, you have multiple aircraft's worth of people on hand. If you hit a particularly busy time, you can not only kill a lo
civilized society is full of holes. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Any place where you have an aggregation of people is a target for terrorist attacks.
It's the security line, stupid (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Exactly. Anywhere people congregate is a viable target for maniacs or terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It still helped. One of the hog fuckers was shot by a cop and killed no one with his bomb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first line of security caused to hog fuckers to go to guns early. Which let the cop do his job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
With sufficient resources, you can simply buy one of those "large planes full of fuel." A 737 costs in the neighborhood of $60M. Being a part of the GA system means no security checkpoints, no screening of any kind. There's also (as elsewhere noted in this thread) the fact that NO ONE is ever going to allow an aircraft to be taken again--anyone attempting such is going to be swarmed and beaten to death by passengers unwilling to be cruise missiles.
Do the math on the above and tell me that your objections
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was also the fear of "when will the next plane hit?" The first plane hit and that was bad, but there was some sliver of doubt saying "maybe this was a horrible accident." Then the second plane hit. Then the third. Then the fourth crashed in the field. By this point, we were paranoid about all flights. Would any plane in the air suddenly veer off course and crash in random locations? Would they be taken over the minute we resumed flights?
This is what the terrorists want to inspire: fear. Fear of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would have to be airports because that wouldn't get the wrong overreaction from the public. Imagine if it were 19 churches the reaction would be suspected terrorists burnt at the stake after being tortured into confessing.
Re: (Score:2)
You should throw the bag into the air just before exploding it to maximize impact.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am still amazed that a TSA wait line has NOT been targeted yet. I'm **hoping** that those attacks the FBI claims to have intercepted were aimed at these EXCEPTIONALLY vulnerable targets.
And, as noted in many places, TSA does not provide security, but security theater instead. So, not only is it useless, but an utter waste of taxpayer and passenger funds. . .
Re: (Score:2)
The next US hit may be something completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
May? Of course it will. Why bother striking where your enemy expects it?
Re: (Score:2)
I am still amazed that a TSA wait line has NOT been targeted yet. I'm **hoping** that those attacks the FBI claims to have intercepted were aimed at these EXCEPTIONALLY vulnerable targets.
And, as noted in many places, TSA does not provide security, but security theater instead. So, not only is it useless, but an utter waste of taxpayer and passenger funds. . .
4th of July weekend and the last week of Ramadan. I'm sure law enforcement organizations across the US are already on alert but this week couldn't be any more symbolically attractive. Security will be beefed up at hard, high profile targets like airports and stadiums but there are too many soft targets (nightclubs, malls, museums, hotels) to secure. Soft targets have the added bonus of hitting people where they think they are safest and vastly increases the impact of an attack. Orlando is a perfect exam
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It may surprise you, but a suicide bomber in the middle of a bunch of people does surprisingly little damage. Bodies are quite good at absorbing shrapnel, after 2-3 layers of bodies between you and the bomber you have a good chance to survive.
It's different if the bomber has more of a radius to work with, as a suicide bomber you don't want to be in a packed place, it limits your efficiency.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's being done. Problem is, the leader doesn't matter. Time and again various TLAs claimed to have killed this or that terrorist figurehead, only to learn 5 minutes later that the next one stepped up to take over.
Why should it be different for them than it is for us? What do you think if some senator got shot? How long do you think it takes for the next goon to take over and continue the same shit?
That's why political murder is so irrelevant today. Not that our politicians didn't deserve a bullet,
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Could have occurred anywhere... (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....
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Could have occurred anywhere... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean irony? It is not irony, that's how religion "works", by making a religious state you never actually promote "love". You don't even have to look only at Muslims or even the middle east in general, e.g. in English history there was a lot of bloody fighting between Catholics and Protestants, whoever came into power would chop the heads of several of the opposite sect. And I wouldn't say a Shia Muslim for example would hate a Christian more than they would hate a Sunni Muslim etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you screen like the Israelis (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You and I have different definitions of "hilarious."
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/lb8fWUUXeKM?t... [youtu.be]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Depends on whether you think its funny when some moron straps rockets to his car to see if he can go fast and spins around out of control like a fire cracker and dies.
People were warned and people are being stupid. People at high levels are playing chicken with a freight train. Consequences are coming down the track for people not taking the issues seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about who benefits from the increase in FEAR.
Re:Unless you screen like the Israelis (Score:5, Interesting)
The Orlando shooter was born in the United States.
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 [washingtonpost.com] and/or their coworkers say they're tied to multiple terrorist groups [usmagazine.com] that, incidentally, totally hate each other [washingtonpost.com].
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 t
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Which values am I abandoning? Dare you to make sense. Double dog dare you.
Yep, Airports are extremely vulnerable (Score:2)
Not all airports -- not Ben Gurion (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.
Re:Not all airports -- not Ben Gurion (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Erdogan used to like Daesh (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
This site has "always" covered non-technology related things that fall into category two. Sorry you don't like that, but you know, if it's such a problem, you could simply not bother to spend the time to click on the links, post comments, etc in the stories you don't like. Posts like yours decrease the signal to noise ratio.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: Hmm (Score:2)
Everything matters to someone, somewhere.
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.
The tech behind preventing such things ? Sure. The fact that another bomber / gunman did their thing. . . not so much.
Re: Hmm (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whose business is that, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey is a sovereign nation. They can name their cities whatever they want. Quit trying to tell Turkey what their own cities are called.
It's nobody's business but the Turks'.
Re: Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
It'll always be good ole Byzantium to me!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting to note that the left wing talking heads are ignoring this one. It not helping at all with their gun grabbing agenda.
We understand perfectly that the right way to handle ISIS and Iran is to maintain the Sunni/Shia stalemate until they have beaten the fight out of each other. The fact they hate each other doesn't make either side 'good guys'.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
You may be correct that not all Muslims are "bad," but your reasoning fails. When Hitler attacked Stalin, that hardly made Stalin a good guy -- contemporaneous USA propoganda notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We just needed a good guy with a gun (Score:2, Informative)
Actually it did. A cop shot one of them before he could do anything. Try again troll.