After the newest decisions of many airlines, to not allow any liquids on flights, some must really think about the liquids in our bodies!
Human beings are consisting of 60% liquid or so, and even to swallow plastics with explosive liquids in it, won't be any problem for dedicated terrorists, isn't it?
So I guess, soon we will end up being dried out completely and stripped of all our rights (which shrinked already significantly) and clothes before entering planes!
Fribee
| fribee wrote: |
After the newest decisions of many airlines, to not allow any liquids on flights, some must really think about the liquids in our bodies!
Human beings are consisting of 60% liquid or so, and even to swallow plastics with explosive liquids in it, won't be any problem for dedicated terrorists, isn't it?
So I guess, soon we will end up being dried out completely and stripped of all our rights (which shrinked already significantly) and clothes before entering planes!
Fribee |
The problem is that the explosive they say the "terrorists" were going to use takes days to make and much more sophisticated equiptment than they could fit into a plane's bathroom.
And you would have smelled it long before it was an explosive danger.
In other words, the whole thing was bullsh*t. Just propoganda to scare people into bigger police state restrictions.And they were all worried about the danger but all the liquids they confiscatred went into the same trash can. Where they could have mixed and become a danger if it was true.
So if the plot was real, it makes the terrorists and the government stupid. The terrorist for picking an expolsive that takes so long to make and the government for handling it so crappy.
I was under the impression that you were allowed sealed bottled water, and certain other things (for kids - as long as they were sealed when you got onto the plain).
The idea was so that the astringents couldn't be used to "temporarily dispose" of people on the plane to possibly hijack it. Seems like an out-there concept to me.
| Soulfire wrote: |
I was under the impression that you were allowed sealed bottled water, and certain other things (for kids - as long as they were sealed when you got onto the plain).
The idea was so that the astringents couldn't be used to "temporarily dispose" of people on the plane to possibly hijack it. Seems like an out-there concept to me. |
Good point.
But hot coffee will do the job to distract and desable people. They serve that in flight. LOL!one of those tough cases where you can only agree with their decision and understand their motives but be truly frustrated by the reality of it
I agree that in the past while we have become particularly aware, by force of the past, of any sort of thing that could possibly be any danger. I think that it was good that they caught these jerks before they had a chance to do anything bad.
They, being the air marshals or related law enforcement officials, had intelligence that said that the terrorists were going to try to get a liquid explosive onto a plane. If one were to have intelligence like that and not use it then they would have been irresponsible and allowed a catastrophe to occur on a scale that would remind a lot of people of 9/11. Bottom line, they had to confiscate all the liquids based on the information that they had. Of course it was a horrible mess at that airport and many others but think about it it could have been a whole lot worse if something had got by and caused a major incident.
There may have been a better way, but I can't think of one right at this moment and I'm sure they couldn't at that point either, just to get all the liquid off of the plane. But back to the point, you see they had specific intelligence that said that there were going to be terrorists attempting to blow up a plane with liquids, (probably in a container). Yes, a dedicated terrorist could consume some sort of explosive and make himself into a bomb himself (let's not give anyone any ideas) but I don't believe though that this was the nature of the threat. I may be a little off base here but I believe I am right - unless disproved definitively - and that they were right in this instance in what they did considering what was at stake; I know that we have (we being the US and the free world) at times over-reacted to a threat such as this or even the threat of a threat but even though it incringes sometimes on liberty and I don't like the way that they do it or in the fact that there aren't alot of checks and balances sometimes (sorry going off-topic); I still say, it was better than ending up with who knows how many more dead bodies littered all over the Atlantic.
