concerned for the injured and victims

[KL-666]

Yes, put the barrier to where? Everywhere there is a barrier people are queueing. So always an opportunity to reek havok. Put a barrier at the front door of the airport, there will be a queue. Put it more outward, then everything is included in the "safe" zone. That makes the safe zone a tautology. It is uncontrollable because it is everything.

Kind regards, Vincent

[HJ1an]

Now, in the wake of Brussels, we’re hearing this again. The implication is that our airports aren’t yet secure enough, and that only more barricades and checkpoints and scanners and cameras and guards standing around with automatic weapons will make them so. There’s talk from supposed security experts asking if perhaps terminals need to be closed off to everybody except ticketed passengers and employees, with security checkpoints moved literally onto the sidewalk.

http://www.askthepilot.com/brussels-airport-attack/

Patrick Smith of AskThePilot.com agrees with that assessment.


There is really zero way to stop anyone with such intents. You can only add deterrents (guards, CCTVs, bomb-sniffing dogs etc) but if anyone wants to do so basically anywhere with lots of people can be a potential target

[Lydiot]

Yes, put the barrier to where? Everywhere there is a barrier people are queueing. So always an opportunity to reek havok. Put a barrier at the front door of the airport, there will be a queue. Put it more outward, then everything is included in the "safe" zone. That makes the safe zone a tautology. It is uncontrollable because it is everything.

Kind regards, Vincent

Exactly right, and so obvious I can't see how some don't see it....

[KL-666]

I remember vividly the process of the end of the cold war. And i also remember vividly what happened directly afterwards. There was an immediate outcry for a new enemy in the west. We can not live without an enemy! Yes, it is just like a cheesy love song. Probably this is inevitable (sub)human nature.

The enemy was quickly found and we have immediately let him know that he was lower than human: the Muslim. Remember that someone like Osama Bin Laden was a well respected ally during the cold war. But after that we dropped him like a stone in our new enemy thinking against the Muslims. Suddenly he and his fellow Muslims were declared the scum of the earth. Logically this Muslim bashing lead to several retaliations culminating in 9-11. And of course this was retaliated back by senseless attacks on countries like Iraq. Retaliated back again by attacks from Al Qaeda. Etc... etc...

Now we are unfortunately a few phases further, with isis in Syria and their supporters in European cities. Both, they and the west have been hurt deeply, or at least feel hurt, and both sides do not want to give in anymore. Both sides want retaliation and thereby hurt each other more. Making the depth of the conflict only graver.

To get out of this downward spiral there is only one solution: One side should stop bashing the other. Sure the one stopping will be hit by the other a few times more. But if that does not lead to retaliation, then those hits will diminish over time and you get into an upward spiral.

If we only realize that we started this crusade the day after the cold war, we might be inclined to be the ones to start stopping to bash the other.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

I actually think the early parts after the cold war had more to do with geo-politics and profit than westerners being anti-Muslim, and I think that's a big part of the reason we saw 911 etc.

[Lydiot]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35911401

[jwocky]

Well, all the "ideology" aside, there are several problems on a tactical and strategical level

1.) Defense

1.1) Short range defense
We are obviously quite hampered in that. Security protocols on hubs like theatre and concert venues and airports and train stations and and and are all based on physical measures like metal detectors, barriers and so on. Which means every one of those potential targets is surrounded by an outer unprotected ring and the access points cause queues which provide a bigger number of potential victims for such bomber attacks. Now, for obvious reasons, you can't push the barriers further out because all you do is pushing the access points and therefore the people further out in always harder to protect area.
The answer here is partially in non-physical but behavioural measures. A metal detector can't spot three guys, two of them wearing ingnitor gloves and the third one so obviously a disguise. People can. Thus, the security personal in those outer, unprotected areas has to be trained to react on things like grouping, human dynamics, behavioural inconsistencies and such and they also need to be trained in what to do when they spot a trio like this. You can't just run to them and yell "freeze!" With two igniter gloves statistically at least one, if not both will push the contact.

1.2) Forward defense
Now, we can call this the whole complex of target analysis, intelligence, communication and reaction. As in other cases, all the information needed to break up those cells was there ... in the US, France, Belgium, Turkey ... the only problem was, nobody reacted on any information or in some instances didn't even get them. The anti-terror community is a big one and with all big communities, you need to establish central information points. Management theoory often says, information is a "to get debt", means, if you need information, you have to go around and get it. Unfortunately, this is not true for criminal investigations and terror prevention because people don't know, there is information they need to get. So between the flow of enormous amounts and data, the failure to distill it in actual information and the lack of such central information points, any warning signs fell through the cracks. We need to overhaul the structure and we can't that by just throwing a billion dollars at the problem and hope everything will get better by hiring more people who don't talk to each other.
Given the tensions between governments and even local governments (in Belgium information wasn't even forwarded between the Flemish and the Wallonish parts) and the perpetual distraction fire of politicians who know about such things usually about as much as a cow about playing a piano, one can have serious doubts, whether government agencies are even suited to handle his kind of threat.

2.) Offense

2,1) Short range
No offense, but ... and that is already the problem. Political correctness forces us to ignore statistical probabilities. We can make a hundred percent sure bet, the next guy who blows himself up in an airport will not be a seven year old Jewish girl. It will be probably a male Muslim between the ages of 20 and 35, he will be with a probability of 88% right handed, he will be with a probability of 93% dark haired and a probability of 97% dark eyed. He will have visited in the year before with a probability of 100% a mosque more than 12 times and then have stopped in the month before or earlier with a probability of 93%.
We can do similiar statistical profiles for any other kind of potential terror bomber. This is of course not complete, but a whole pattern profile would bore people only to death here. Point is, we have to take a closer look at such defined population groups of potentials. And it is, in my opinion justified because the Muslim shop owner who flies with his children to theri grandparents in Istanbul doesn't like blown up more than anybody else. So, we have to look into those groups already in strike distance.

2.2.) Mid range
Neighborhoods like Moolenbeck(sp?) now suddenly become subject of the focus. Which is a joke and a sad one. Such subcultural bubbles of disenfranchised immigrants are identified since centuries, even milenia, as a danger. Already chroniclers in ancient Egypt wrote about neighborhoods full of Greeks in ancient Egyptian cities prone to commit political murder because well, the Greek immigrant in ancient Egypt were about as integrated as our Middle Easterners. On a historical side note, they had back then a serious problem with suicide mass poisoners.
So, the problem is old as dirt, the solution is old as dirt ... dissolve those bubbles and if you can't check then regularly and hard.

2.3) Logn range
As long as we leave a determined and fanatical enemy the tactical option to run a central command in an area bigger than most European nations, this central command will run ... just that. To take the land ISIS has under control is as crucial as taking the Taliban mountains from Al-Qaeda was. Just that.

J.

[Lydiot]

2,1) Short range
No offense, but ... and that is already the problem. Political correctness forces us to ignore statistical probabilities. We can make a hundred percent sure bet, the next guy who blows himself up in an airport will not be a seven year old Jewish girl. It will be probably a male Muslim between the ages of 20 and 35, he will be with a probability of 88% right handed, he will be with a probability of 93% dark haired and a probability of 97% dark eyed. He will have visited in the year before with a probability of 100% a mosque more than 12 times and then have stopped in the month before or earlier with a probability of 93%.
We can do similiar statistical profiles for any other kind of potential terror bomber. This is of course not complete, but a whole pattern profile would bore people only to death here. Point is, we have to take a closer look at such defined population groups of potentials. And it is, in my opinion justified because the Muslim shop owner who flies with his children to theri grandparents in Istanbul doesn't like blown up more than anybody else. So, we have to look into those groups already in strike distance.

I don't want to live in such a society. But then again, I don't have white skin, and my hair is black. It's easy enough for people who aren't going to be profiled because of their skin color to favor this line of action.

Further more, what is your recommendation for Norway? To check pro-Christian white people with blue eyes? After all, statistically speaking the most violent bomb attacks and massacres are most likely to come from someone looking like this:



Or how about this guy:

Am I to understand that people like that are not to be checked any harder while I am, despite them looking for people like me to murder? See what I'm getting at? What does that do for the integration you speak of?

How about the US? By far the majority of actual terrorist activity is not due to religion. And this has been true for a long time. I don't see much profiling of white people here either, to ensure the right-wing nutcases don't go blowing up federal buildings, burn abortion clinics or murder black people.

In other words, this is the kind of rhetoric and thinking that comes up when "they" are the terrorists, not when "we" are doing it. "They" should be profiled, and when "we" are doing it we really aren't, it's just rotten apples. Nothing to profile there......

[KL-666]

I am on your side Lydiot. You worded the problem very wel. And i can not be suspected of having an interest, because i am blonde and have blue eyes.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, that is the problem ... when people neither read nor think about what is written. The simple mass is "look for skin and hair color" and it's "racial profiling". Well, actually, if you would read complete and maybe go through the pains to understand that any form of profiling includes not two or three but dozens of parameters, you maybe, maybe, would get the gist ...
After having said that, take Anders Breivik ans an example ...

The racist in you of course can only stare at the pale skin and the blond hair ... you don't see, he has a history of writing manifests ... you don't see, he was member is shooting clubs ... you don't see, that he lived in some kind of disenfranchised environment for years ... no, you can see only race ... now, does that make me or you the racist?

Now, lets take you, Lydiot as example ... no white skin ... dark hair ... I don't know about religion ... hundred of posts on different forums about planes ... aerodynamics ... atcing ... and some pretty provocative left sideline comments crowded with buzzwords.
So, no offense, but you profile as young nerd with a good chance to become an old nerd like me one day ... but not as a terrorist. Just put a lit more work in understanding things like profiling before you regurgitate the buzzwords.

Having said that, I have to give you one point, even you didn't touch that subject explicitly, profiling and profiling can be a big quality difference. We need standards and quality control mechanisms. But think about it ... those dead people in Brussels ... they don't LIVE anymore in such or any other society. Which is exactly the problem. We have to do something.