| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2006 08:02:11 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO What a huge overreaction this 'no handbags' thing is.
... As if carrying it in the hold won't do any damage if it indeed turns out to be a bomb ... |
From what I've heard it sounds like the liquid and the electronic (battery operated item) were intended to be assembled after the plane(s) were airborne. By putting everything it the hold section it should reduce this capability.
I, for one, am glad they are taking extra precautions. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:09:23 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO What a huge overreaction this 'no handbags' thing is.
... As if carrying it in the hold won't do any damage if it indeed turns out to be a bomb ... |
From what I've heard it sounds like the liquid and the electronic (battery operated item) were intended to be assembled after the plane(s) were airborne. By putting everything it the hold section it should reduce this capability.
I, for one, am glad they are taking extra precautions. |
The explosives were to be carried in fizzy drinks bottles in their hand luggage. Since this has been identified I hardly think that avoiding carrying anything on, is an over reaction at this point, when they cannot be sure that all the terrorists have been arrested. It has never been said that this will be a continuing ruling but it is an interim precaution while the alert is at critical - the highest level in the UK.
latest report from BBC - plan was to bring down planes over a period of days; explosions on flight, wait until things settled down then repeat, and so on.
P
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:22:12 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
The explosives were to be carried in fizzy drinks bottles in their hand luggage. Since this has been identified I hardly think that avoiding carrying anything on, is an over reaction at this point, when they cannot be sure that all the terrorists have been arrested. It has never been said that this will be a continuing ruling but it is an interim precaution while the alert is at critical - the highest level in the UK.
latest report from BBC - plan was to bring down planes over a period of days; explosions on flight, wait until things settled down then repeat, and so on.
P |
I'd put money on it that this will be a coninuing ruling. They will never be able to arrest all the terrorists, because when you bust this group a new one can use the same idea. So another safety thing to get used to.
I see an opportunity for business here: A "rent a camera with lenses shop" at every airport.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:26:15 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO What a huge overreaction this 'no handbags' thing is.
This goes to far.
Not to mention the extra time it takes. Airport hell. |
Oh please!
If not for the measures that the authorities deem necessary, your post could have been delayed by about 8 to 9 hours of flight time and THEN may have been worded more along the lines of:
"Why didn't they do more to keep explosives off of those 21 (or so) planes that crashed into those cities today? And why didn't they anticipate that terrorists would convert their explosives to liquids? It seems that the terrorists always seem so stay one step AHEAD of security. Why do we let this happen?"
These are the kind of comments that we heard after the 9/11 incidents. I think its disgusting to hear comments about "overreaction" and "airport hell" when it appears that security measures have been successful, refined and adjusted to meet the crisis.
Knowing the details of this new threat, if security did not adjust and take these extra measures then so called "experts" and 20/20 hindsight complainers would have a field day. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:37:30 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
IMHO What a huge overreaction this 'no handbags' thing is.
This goes to far.
Not to mention the extra time it takes. Airport hell. |
Oh please!
If not for the measures that the authorities deem necessary, your post could have been delayed by about 8 to 9 hours of flight time and THEN may have been worded more along the lines of:
"Why didn't they do more to keep explosives off of those 21 (or so) planes that crashed into those cities today? And why didn't they anticipate that terrorists would convert their explosives to liquids? It seems that the terrorists always seem so stay one step AHEAD of security. Why do we let this happen?"
These are the kind of comments that we heard after the 9/11 incidents. I think its disgusting to hear comments about "overreaction" and "airport hell" when it appears that security measures have been successful, refined and adjusted to meet the crisis.
Knowing the details of this new threat, if security did not adjust and take these extra measures then so called "experts" and 20/20 hindsight complainers would have a field day. |
Azrifel's comment has merit, IMO. If a terrorist is bound and determined to take down a flight, they're going to find a way to do it. Forcing all handbags to be checked in the hold is asinine - security would be better off checking them all by hand as people went through the checkpoint. This measure is inconviencing thousands of normal people, without producing a definite benefit. And as far as the baggage monkeys go, I've seen the things they do to luggage - half of it will get maimed and destroyed in transit. Now how is that fair?
Airport hell is real. With this measure in place, terrorists will just move on to something else. It's a case of addressing the symptoms and not the cause.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:44:21 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Airport hell is real. With this measure in place, terrorists will just move on to something else. It's a case of addressing the symptoms and not the cause. |
Yes it's real, and yes the terrorists move on to something else. But THIS TIME they were stopped before their "something else" worked. There might be more of them already staged to use "something else". Should we not use this method to stop these already in place terrorists until methods are determined and put in place that causes less inconvenience for us or just let us take our chances in the meantime?
Don't forget how much more airports were hell shortly after 9/11 than they have been recently. Security has do to their job immediately and figure out how to smooth things out later. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:50:46 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
The explosives were to be carried in fizzy drinks bottles in their hand luggage. Since this has been identified I hardly think that avoiding carrying anything on, is an over reaction at this point, when they cannot be sure that all the terrorists have been arrested. It has never been said that this will be a continuing ruling but it is an interim precaution while the alert is at critical - the highest level in the UK.
latest report from BBC - plan was to bring down planes over a period of days; explosions on flight, wait until things settled down then repeat, and so on.
P |
I'd put money on it that this will be a coninuing ruling. They will never be able to arrest all the terrorists, because when you bust this group a new one can use the same idea. So another safety thing to get used to.
I see an opportunity for business here: A "rent a camera with lenses shop" at every airport. |
It would be impossible to continue the regime at present in place. I have no doubt that there will be stronger security in future but for me the more security the safer I feel on board a plane. On a recent internal flight in Egypt I was very nervous to see a rather dour looking man in a thoub that seemed to be covering either a very unnatural paunch or something hidden underneath!
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:57:04 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
What's next, no bags on trains also? |
X-ray luggage scans, metal detectors and explosives detectors are already being trialled in the UK for train and tube stations. The problem is dealing with the massive throughput of people using trains as opposed to planes.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:01:03 AM · #34 |
No liquids are making it onto the planes. I understand the reasoning, but I feel bad for people who really need stuff. Things that come to mind immediately are baby bottles, contact solutions, and a few medications.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:08:33 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
What's next, no bags on trains also? |
X-ray luggage scans, metal detectors and explosives detectors are already being trialled in the UK for train and tube stations. The problem is dealing with the massive throughput of people using trains as opposed to planes. |
Yes, but they use those items for airplane security checks as well and it seems like those checks are not thought to be good enough.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:21:27 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
No liquids are making it onto the planes. I understand the reasoning, but I feel bad for people who really need stuff. Things that come to mind immediately are baby bottles, contact solutions, and a few medications. |
They're letting baby bottles, lens cases, and necessary medication in.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:22:41 AM · #37 |
This is a dreadful situation where getting the balance between action and waiting, extreme prevention and "best guess" is never going to be easy. Better to ere on the side of safety, I think, and marginally over react than to under react and have a disaster.
There are two things that worry me about this set of incidents. First off, the total commitment to the cause being shown by the terrorists indicates that they will think of yet other means to inflict damage, chaos and death on their chosen enemies. This round may be have been won, but how do you win in the long term - create a quasi police state wherein all movement is monitored and restricted, just in case?
The second follows from the first and that is the probable erosion of personal freedoms enjoyed by us in the West. By ensuring that the "reign of terror" is maintained - even if plans are thwarted - there is every chance that Governments will react by becoming over-zealous in their "protection" of their citizens. Making travel difficult is one step towards curtailment of movement as people will ultimately decide not to bother when faced with such daunting check-in security policies and the resulting delays. Moreover, long haul becomes even more of a trial for those in coach without their "creature comforts".
It is not too big a step to then see Governments taking further steps in the dissemination of information (much more difficult these days with the net) and increasing the "stop and search" powers afforded to the police. When such powers are inadvisedly directed at the ethnic populations associates with acts of terrorism then increased unrest and isolationism occurs, inexorably leading to the creation of another pool of potential terrorists.
There is some evidence of this in the UK but, thankfully, in a constrained sense and one probably in line with the threat analysis post the London bombings last year. But I hope that this incumbent Government thinks very carefully about further extensions along the lines outlined by some senior police offices some time back and does not react in a typical knee-jerk fashion.
Scary times. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:32:46 AM · #38 |
It seems to me that every increase in security like this that causes disruption on this sort of scale is a win for the terrorists. Yes, the bigger threat of a potential loss of life is avoided, but there is still massive cost to "normality" that basically means that the terrorist group has, to an extent, achieved their objective.
Only if matters like this could be handled in a way approaching "routine" could the powers that be be seen to be prevailing, I think.
It's a very tricky situation. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:35:56 AM · #39 |
this is concerning to me, I have a good friend that just went to the UK. I haven't been in touch with him but I'm sure he'll have a hard time coming back through the airport, and I hate to say it, but his skin colour is not going to help the situation.
This is three 'thwarted' terrorist attacks in recent past -- one in Canada, US, and now UK. I'd like to know if the agencies are just getting better at tracking these down, or if more people are coming forward to offer tips. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:48:26 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Makka:
How much do they actually search hand luggage in UK and the US? I remember 2 years ago I was on an interstate flight here in Australia and everything of mine was thoroughly searched. Even my camera bag was totally searched (everything emptied). How much of a chance is there to actually take a bomb on board in hand luggage these days? |
Well, searching does very little. Searching is for the sole purpose of detecting non-explosive based hand-weapons (knives, etc.)
What does the real searching in U.S. airports are the "sniffers". These are chemical analyzers (and I imagine geiger counters as well). That detect for certain substances.
For example: while travelling thru San Diego airport my mom was stopped because her bag set off the chemical detectors. Apparently detected a possible explosive. And accurately so...it had detected high concentrations of nitrate. A common substance in certain explosives.
"How and Why?"
We finally traced it to our trip to the beach. My mom had set her bag down on a rock which happened to be covered in bird crap, which is very high in nitrates. After the first detection they bring the bag over to a more complex but slower machine and swab the bag and test. Here it determines that although nitrates were found the chemical composition was not an explosive. 15 minutes later we are on our marry way.
The inspector stated that they wind up stopping a fair number of elderly because of hand lotion. Much of which contains glycerol. So, don't use glycerol based products before a flight.
Now, I don't know how many airports feature these new "sniffers" but I will tell you this. A lot more than we might think. This happened in May 2004. When it happened, I had just read how about 8 major airports that had the new machines. San Diego was not on the list. But it did. So I think the government has wisely been holding back the details of what airports have had such and similar equipment installed.
And the chemical & material detection equipment is rapidly advancing. Already cameras are being tested that look for certain spectral and magnetic properties to help detect from a distance.
That said, we will eventually get nuked, sad to say. But once they have such an explosive in their hand there is not much we can do to prevent it. One need only to take a small sailboat from West Africa to New York Harbor and detonate. There is no way we can inspect every little sailboat that comes in. Foreign vessels may be kept waiting in the harbor already for health reasons but that doesn't help much for a large detonation. Blowing up planes is even easier. Simply gel capping and swallowing the explosive gives you a time delay as the stomach disolves it and prevents detection.
Our only chance is to run them in the ground. Keep them running. Keep them dying. Give them alternative & easier targets (a.k.a. Iraq). And hope we keep a fast enough turn-over that they don't succeed in implementing a major plan.
Pray if you pray and if you don't....hope. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:52:15 AM · #41 |
| At this site are theTSA Guidelines for what can be carried on a US plane. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:04:42 AM · #42 |
The other problem is how much we are losing the propaganda war. Our media gobbles up every little thing the terrorists feed them.
Many people now are hearing of the numerous faked and staged photos they have been seeing from Lebanon and elsewhere. And are starting to realize just how duped the media has been. Then you have Pallywood. Where you find out a lot of those clips you've seen on the news are staged propaganda films. I question most of the death statistics we get from middle-east sources. We heard only the other day that 40+ were killed in the bombing of a building by Israeli forces only to be later informed there was only one death. Still, I will argue that one death is a sad travesty. But for those who have followed this situation for a few years they are well aware of the fact that the numbers are usually inflated 10x or more for propaganda purposes. Many scenes we see are real, there is no denying a video of a bomb hitting a building and destroying it. That said, much of what we see is nothing more than Hollywood. Watch this video. Many of you may remember seeing some of these clips in the news. I remember the one with the man and his son behind the 50 gallon drumb. I weeped on that one and thought the Israelis had gone too far. Apparently, they never even left the security station.
Watch this film...it will shock you!
What's going on in the world right now is tragic. The innoncents dying in Lebanon at the hands of Israeli weapons is tragic. The Israelis dying at the hands of Hezbellah & Iran's missiles is tragic.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:23:38 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Makka:
I'm not religious at all but yes, it definately is getting more chaotic! |
It always has been chaotic, nowadays you just get more info and you get it faster. |
That is soooo true... we are a culture suffering from information overload, we are more likely to all die from anxiety than the world suddenly ending.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:28:35 AM · #44 |
glad they caught these guys
my dad is a pilot and flies the Heathrow to O'Hare trip for American all the time.
luckily he's in Japan today. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:37:08 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
glad they caught these guys
my dad is a pilot and flies the Heathrow to O'Hare trip for American all the time.
luckily he's in Japan today. |
Hate to burst your bubble but they haven't necessarily caught all of them, in fact I would be surprised if they have, and the flights threatened were not today - they could be at any time in the near future. The arrests and precautions were implemented before they could act.
Originally posted by the Saj
The other problem is how much we are losing the propaganda war. Our media gobbles up every little thing the terrorists feed them
Can't see what this has to do with this thread. The photos etc have been discussed in another thread and I think we should keep on the subject here.
P
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:38:44 AM · #46 |
The shockwaves from this are far-reaching. Just look at how it affected poor Hannah from Surrey;
//news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230426,00.html
"Eight hours without an iPod, that's the most inconvenient thing.
"It's a massive inconvenience, I can't take my make-up on the flight. I'm not worried about delays and I'm reassured by the checks they're doing."
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 11:38:50. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:43:30 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
The shockwaves from this are far-reaching. Just look at how it affected poor Hannah from Surrey;
//news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230426,00.html
"Eight hours without an iPod, that's the most inconvenient thing.
"It's a massive inconvenience, I can't take my make-up on the flight. I'm not worried about delays and I'm reassured by the checks they're doing." |
As selfish and myopic as that sounds, she is right...terrorist's aim is to terrorise and disrupt everyday life. Hannah from Surrey should be able to carry make up and not have her very personal belongings put in the hold...the terrorists win if she can't even carry make up;) |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:44:41 AM · #48 |
| My mom is supposed to fly back from London this weekend. I'm afraid these worms are totally dedicated towards our extermination as a culture. They won't stop until they win or we wipe them out. Just wait until they get their hands on nukes. Do you doubt that they would hesitate to use them on us? I also am afraid that it will take one or two more vicious attacks against us before we get serious and do what needs to be done. Its destined to happen, just a matter of when and where. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:49:44 AM · #49 |
| what would happen to your body if you tried to negotiate with cancer? |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:55:21 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
what would happen to your body if you tried to negotiate with cancer? |
Very accurate analogy...unfortunately... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 05:20:52 PM EDT.
