It’s now clear that the bomb recently found in a printer cartridge on a plane at a UK airport, might have been timed to detonate over the US.
Passengers spend hours in queues for various scanning procedures to avoid terrorist attacks on flights.
We patiently take our shoes off and limit our hygiene and beauty products to a maximum of 100 ml in clear plastic bags.
Yet cargo such as machinery and office equipment are leaving un-scanned on flights from the Middle East.
It was only when a second search was insisted at West Midland Airport in the UK 29 October that the printer cartridge containing the explosives was found.
Once again, we were very close to learning another gruesome lesson too late.
Actions and reactions
Before 9/11, no-one had even in their wildest imagination thought that jet-planes would be used to bomb national landmarks.
And before August 2006, when a terrorist plot was revealed last minute, planning to blow up seven Trans-Atlantic flights, the risk of liquid bombs had not been taken into consideration.
Last Christmas the 23-year old Nigerian "crotch bomber" boarded a North Western Airline Flight to Detroit, hiding explosives in his underwear. In the air, his attempt to detonate the explosives was unsuccessful.
Now, cockpits are no longer accessible without security codes, gels and liquids are heavily restricted, body scanners are becoming more frequent and presumably – new scanning procedures for cargo flights will now be a priority.
But even with all these lessons learned since 9/11, the terrorists keep being one step ahead. They act, while we react.
I'ts proven that no security measures can be too rigorous to keep us safe, and hopefully eventually, ahead of the game.
I'ts proven that no security measures can be too rigorous to keep us safe, and hopefully eventually, ahead of the game.
Hi
ReplyDeleteThe london bombings were a reaction to the iraq war i am pretty certain, also the afghanistan war doesn't help, the 911 attacks were about US support for israel, US troops on saudi soil and support for regimes in the muslim world plus i think the sanctions of the 90s in iraq. If we hadn't gone into iraq the london bombings probably wouldn't have happened and we would'nt be in this situation, also invading afghanistan to find and kill a dozen terrorists (see wikipedia) doesn't make sense when we could have used cruise missle strikes on camps as had already been done navy seal strikes and detective work. I am not even sure the training camps in afghanistan were to train terrorists but rather to train fighters to go and fight in kashmir or bosnia. The 911 terrorists were mostly saudi arabian and also one egyptian and one lebonese and one from the UAE, occupying afghanistan with all the thousands of dead and wounded soldiers doesn't stop another saudi arabian from boarding a train or a bus with a bomb. So i don't think the war makes any sense, they just walked into a massive terrorist attack and got killed, they could have achieved the death of bin laden and some others without all the soldier deaths. to be honest i think its incredibly stupid.
to stop terrorism would entail getting out of the middle east and stop supporting israel, get off saudi soil etc also giving up dependence on oil as the US supports israel as a base for american power in the region(i think i am right about that)anyway it would mean getting out of the region. There's enough solar power to run america in the south west US and the UK could run itself on wind and solar, you can't sell wind and solar around the world but the worry about terrorism would stop.
as you know iraq had nothing to do with 911, and sadam wasn't a terrorist threatening the west, as if he was he would get annihilated. so really that was another very stupid war. if we didn't have idiots running our countries we wouldn't have terrorism.
ReplyDelete