Passengers at EU Airports Not Allowed over 100ml of Liquids on Cabin Luggage
schengen.news
schengen.news
What Bin Laden et al wanted to do was inflict long term economic pain, and they absolutely accomplished that goal. This just shows they’re still succeeding, really.
It's amazing how much of the world runs off inefficient databases! Certainly rigging a benchmark would do a lot more than a ziploc full of some volatile peroxide.
I don't think they ever cared about damaging the US in general, they just want the US and the west in general out of their backyard.
Their message to the arab world was to unite against a common enemy, hated and proven vulnerable.
You also don’t hit that economic target with two planes full of people because you’re trying to imply you’ll stop if they do.
Asymmetric warfare is almost always about bleeding the big, fat, slow moving one of his resources, and anyone that punched America in the face from Afghanistan understood that history, while also knowing how much (expensive, for decades) hell was going to come to rest on his doorstep.
He was trying to inflict economic pain and also goad an idiot president into invading the graveyard of empires of his own accord. He didn’t want them out of his backyard, he wanted them stuck in his backyard.
And he succeeded. On all counts. Dude got exactly what he wanted.
I know that's basically the official story (they just hate America in a supervillain kind of way), but it doesn't really make any sense.
If America were to leave them alone, why would they care about America?
Their entire problem with America is that America doesn't leave them alone, whether for oil or to give their transplanted local enemy starting with an 'I' a massive artificial resources advantage over them.
You are telling me that if America became isolationist towards the ME with respect to foreign policy actions and only engaged with the ME via consensual trade, that Bin Laden or whoever would still want to take America down? If so, why?
The official story from say Little Bush might have been “they hate us”, but the actual story is more accurately “they hate anything that substantially contradicts the message of and/or tempts (in their mind) Muslim youth away from their Salafist literalist interpretation of the Qu’ran and the Hadith.” An extremist like Bin Laden coming out of the Salafi tradition is basically the Islamic version of a Fred Phelps; the only truth is in the Qu’ran and the Hadith, that truth is literal and immutable, and the only way to behave correctly is to behave exactly as the righteous few who were there with Muhammad behaved. Anyone else is either an unbeliever (and to be enslaved by the caliphate) or, worse, an apostate (and to be put to death). This relatively small band of utter nutters really do represent a tiny fraction of Muslims, but they’re a tiny fraction who exist within a death cultist worldview that truly does want to see the world either ruled according to their interpretation of God’s message or, as an alternative, for the world to end according to God’s message (as they’re interpreted it).
> If America were to leave them alone, why would they care about America?
In the modern iteration of particularly jihadist-leaning Salafism (via Ibn Wahhab) America essentially is the resurgent inheritor of Rome and a modern Crusader state. Bin Laden and Al Quaeda essentially saw modern American liberal capitalism as the most decedent form of culture imaginable, and saw it corrupting and ensnaring souls away from good and into evil via music, movies, Coca Cola and cultural hegemony. Move on to Da’esh / ISIS / ISIL and they’ve injected the idea that Americans are literally the direct continuation of Rome in their mad reading it’s a battle with Rome that leads to the arrival of the Mahdi and Jesus and the judgement, which by the way is supposed to happen any day now.
> Their entire problem with America is that America doesn't leave them alone, whether for oil or to give their transplanted local enemy starting with an 'I' a massive artificial resources advantage over them.
The bulk of their problem with America has more to do with Saudi politics and who has control over the mosques at Mecca and Medina than you might imagine. America’s closeness to the Saudi regime (and that regime’s willingness to defile their holiest sites by allowing Crusader armies to set up camp there) put a real bee in their bonnet, after they’d successfully chucked the Soviet infidels out of Afghanistan having American infidels invited into spitting distance of the holiest sites in Sunni Islam was a step too far.
> You are telling me that if America became isolationist towards the ME with respect to foreign policy actions and only engaged with the ME via consensual trade, that Bin Laden or whoever would still want to take America down? If so, why?
Sure they would, and for much the same reason that Americans wanted to take the Soviets down. Folks like Bin Laden see Islam as the most powerful political force in the world and they’re trying to establish a new, righteous Caliphate (the previous one only failed, ending the Islamic golden age, because it wasn’t conservative and orthodox enough, you see), and the natural enemy of that caliphate is any infidel state, with the biggest enemy being the biggest and most powerful such state. If China supplants America they’ll switch to taking down China, even though China hasn’t meddled in anything like that same fashion… the meddling and the foreign policy aren’t the issue, it’s the lack of adherence to the faith.
The article addressed it pretty well. They have a fairly strong desire to not blow up in the taxi to the airport, so you can't carry premixed TATP around. And it won't work to just dump it into the toilet or sink and let the reaction rip, you won't get enough TATP out of that to matter.
Terrorism doesn’t work, as a political program, by seeking repeat success, it works by capitalizing on your very occasional successes by making the targeted people spend way more resources on defense than you do on offense.
That’s my whole point… they don’t need to actually succeed at taking down the aircraft to make a return on investment. If they sacrifice a few pawns on failed attempts they get the worldwide airline industry and governments around the planet to spend more on persistent security theater then several thousand times the operating budget of all the world’s terrorists combined, they’ve achieved their goal.
Seems even with the new scanners there is some issue why they have to limit items to no more than 100ml temporarily. Maybe waiting for a software update… though if there is a loophole seems weird to wait until September 1st…
> Technical information received by the Commission and validated by ECAC States and laboratories, shows that the existing configurations of standard C3 EDSCB equipment to which the Commission has granted the ‘EU Stamp’ marking or the ‘EU Stamp pending’ marking need to be revised in order to improve their performance
Sounds like this might be a software problem of some sort, although it’s surprising if that’s affecting multiple vendors. Maybe an issue with the certification process?
TLDW: was previously hard to tell the difference between water and explosives.
Are there edible explosives?
The queues are long enough already, much faster to just say no.
> Are there edible explosives?
Yes, quite a lot, food calories can be made explosive. Don't give them ideas.
Do we allow 100ml of phone battery? Does a Macbook contain even more energy?
If I understand this correctly there are new scanners that should make it easier to detect explosives, I guess. But while they do have these new scanners, they still will not allow more than 100ml, which was the case already.
Then they got rid of the rule so that more than 100ml is allowed
Now they've reintroduced the rule
Schiphol for example lets you bring in whatever whater you want in whatever flask you have.
This is not true, airports with upgraded scanners are complying with the law just fine.
This appears to be a temporary technical problem:
> This precautionary measure is not in response to any new threat but addresses a temporary technical issue, undertaken in alignment with the EU’s international partners
And:
> Technical information received by the Commission and validated by ECAC States and laboratories, shows that the existing configurations of standard C3 EDSCB equipment to which the Commission has granted the ‘EU Stamp’ marking or the ‘EU Stamp pending’ marking need to be revised in order to improve their performance
Yes, you can transfer a bit into special travel containers but you'll have to hit the spray button dozens of times to transfer even a meaningful quantity. And if you don't wear latex gloves your hands will have a strong smell for the rest of the week.
Fortunately with a lot of modern expensive perfume it's usually possible to just open bottle and use some easier way to transfer the liquid like with syringe. Transfering it by spraying is very invonvinient.
So at least there is one good and useful consequence of eco / reuse movement.
Of course they found a nice name to try to make up for this extremely bad user experience ...
I use one of the big brand fragrances and I'd prefer they sold small vials, a bit larger than the usual testers, but they don't.
In Italy you have to relinquish your bottle caps to enter concerts, which is interesting now that caps need to be attached to the bottles.
Has anyone tried it in EU or SEA?
Many in Europe do not.
For example, most I've been to do not. That doesn't become a rule now, it just disproves the point that hydration stations are the norm.
So why do you insist to dismiss the existence of other airports you've haven't been to that don't have water stations just because it doesn't match your personal experience? Please keep an open mind and arguments in good faith as per HN rules.
Have you seen the dark patterns some airports use like very low taps that don't fit a water bottle under them in the sinks, or hooking up the taps to the warm water lines?
Also, tap water in some countries, while safe to drink, tastes awful, like chlorine, so even if you can get it from the bathroom tap, it's not ideal.
It does. https://www.wateratairports.com/topic/flughafen-hamburg-ham-...
And claiming "every one I've been to" proves what exactly?
>There has been one claim in this thread, that Hamburg does not. It does.
Great, but what does that have to do with my comments? Since I never mentioned Hamburg airport, so why rub that in my face?
I've been to other airports that don't provide water stations which I can talk about, but not Hamburg.
What's your problem?
I don't have a problem, but clearly you do so I'm gonna stop replying to you right here. Cheers!
I could swear I saw a drinking fountain once, somewhere along that long corridor connecting the gates but I never found it again and, to this date, I've never drank from it. (I mostly fly Eurowings to other Schengen destinations.) If it really exists, I'm sure there is only one such station past security, or maybe one per airport wing.
And look, in a pinch I'm ready to drink tap water from the airport toilet faucets. I'm ready to entrust my life to that dice roll. But, as a matter of human dignity being inviolable and all that, I would much rather shell out money for an expensive bottle of water.
The bigger joke is that the vending machines in an international airport only accept euro and no credit cards.
Maybe this changed since I have moved from hamburg to Stockholm 2 years ago. But the hamburg airport compared to Arlanda is a joke.
You say that like it's bad? Hamburg tap water was perfectly ok a few years ago when I was there. Has it changed?
Are you sure the taps in commercial restrooms would have more bacteria?
Some mouth to tap action at the fountains might even the odds abit too.
Selective enforcement and shifting requirements is one of the major issues with airport security.
Some places force off belts and shoes, and force you to remove laptops and electronics from bags, some force them to be in your bag… it’s very annoying that it’s not consistent across airports. (in europe).
Travel time makes a big difference too, e.g. at peak times please keep your shoes on.
I now travel by train instead of plane. Sure, it takes a lot more time but I can bring however much of whatever I want, I get to sit in a comfortable chair, I have my laptops (etc.) with me and get to work on whatever I want. Sometimes I even meet interesting people. I regularly travel from Sweden to the Netherlands this way, sometimes alone, sometimes with my daughter when she comes home from university or goes back there (she studies in Utrecht, we live in Sweden). Train travel is far from perfect and delays are common but seen as a whole it is a far better experience than air travel. It also happens to be quite a bit less expensive on the routes I frequent.
And so will I, just as soon as the build a train tunnel under the Atlantic.
Add a 8 EUR sandwich and you have a perfect dinner.
I would've expect that they take a sample from inside but they just scanned the outside
Security theatre is such a waste.
The EU is bending backward to US pressure and the rumour is that it’s because Avionix scanners are not as good as the ones from their non US competitors.
Maybe it’s just that there is a major issue with all the C3 scanners currently on the market which was somehow missed during all these years of strenuous certification. Who knows? Certainly not me.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if it came out the handful of companies that always seem to populate the duty-free area where lobbying to keep security checks in place, I can't say I would be surprised as I'd imagine it being a rather lucrative location to sell deodorant's shampoos, and other basic hygiene essentials.
We’re stuck in a local minimum where people extract the most money from each other.
Another quote from the article: "secret teams from the DHS found that the TSA failed 95 percent of the time to stop inspectors from smuggling weapons or explosive materials through screening."
So we're wasting peoples time and forcing nonsensical procedures upon them to... not actually stop anything.
[0]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...
911 ?
It is the same everywhere. We must fight terrorism (at least some part of it). /s