Don't Quite Understand Liquid Ban

[canadiansnowbird]

I guess it might come to this; One freight flight for ONLY baggage, which will leave ahaed of the passenger flight. Passenger carry nothing but ID and money. :rolleyes:

 

DH and I are flying into and out of LHR next month and I'm already wondering if I want to pack in the hold: camera, ipod and speakers, jewellery. I'm going on a cruise -- no jewellery :eek:

 

They say it will calm down but, I don't think they will allow any liquids again. It has been said that it was "discussed before" to limit some of these articles but the passenger public would be too upset by it. Now they have their reason.

 

Snowbird

[Ekaj]

What is WITH everyone? "This could happen, that could happen, this chemical does that, this one can be concealed in a baby bottle," etc. Yep, a lot CAN happen in life. But it usually doesn't. Yes, airports are taking precautions, but oh my gosh, I really, really hope they don't continue the ridiculous bans of simple comforts like some lip balm, toothpaste, and your own sandwich for a transatlantic flight of 11 hours (from West Coast, for example.) That's just idiotic, in my very frustrated opinion. You folks okay with your freedoms being taken away? Great. I'm not.

 

Remember, where there's a will, there's a way. If someone REALLY wants something bad to take place, it's possible they may be resourceful enough to make it happen. What is that saying about a mouse, some cheese, and a maze? The mouse just gets smarter. These bans are all defensive moves; the thing that will really help this situation is to eliminate the terrorist groups themselves. But that, of course, means taking action, and when you take action, sometimes it means you go to war. And of course, that's not a popular option, is it?

 

I'd say more, but I'm waiting for the flames as it is. So, who's going to take my words out of context first? :rolleyes:

[loungelizard]

I should clarify...when I mentioned "potentially explosive chemicals" I was referring to all the cold coffee, spring water, mother's milk, flat soda and other perfectly good "deadly" beverages and liquids that we are forced to discard. It's amazing what we are being asked to do in the name of "security" and yet we do it without question. The idea of terrorists smuggling chemicals onboard a plane, mixing them and then destroying the plane is not new. We've known about it for over a decade now but yet they have just realized that they need to start banning liquids NOW? Think of all the opportunities that terrorists could have taken over the last 14 years, but yet nothing happened ( except for the shoe bomber ). Now, all of a sudden this threat returns...I just don't buy it. I can't help but think that this whole thing is a distraction to divert our attention from what is happening elsewhere in the world. Flame if you must...but it's just MHO.

[shmthaus]

To those who think the ban is ridiculous:

 

What would you be saying if after thwarting the terrorist plot in UK and there was no ban. Then let's say this week the same plot was used by those who have not been caught and at least one plane was bombed.

 

I know, we could what if all day. My favorite saying is: "If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts when they jump".

 

Yes there are always other ways to commit terrorist acts and this too will pass. Hopefully by then, if there are more actors involved in this plot, they will be caught.

 

We can't let our guards down and become complacent. I have seen it in many other ways where someone has become complacent and been a victim of crime. I view this as the same thing as what is happening in the airline industry. We become complacent and someone takes advantage of it.

 

Here in Dallas, the news is showing a film clip where an elderly man is standing at a McDonald's counter waiting for his food and not paying attention to the man next to him. The younger man leans to his right a little and winds up a sucker punch and lays the older man out and then takes the older mans wallet. This is in front of a McDonalds worker and caught on tape. My point is, be aware of your surroundings at all times. The same man is then in Waco in a liquor store. He puts a large bottle of liqour on the counter and asks the clerk a question. While she is answering him, he grabs the bottle and smacks her on the head, while her grandchildren watch. He jumps the counter and proceeds to beat her on the head with the cash register.

 

Organized terrorist, NO. He is someone who wants something and is acting on another person's complacency.

 

OK, I have now donned my flame retardent suit...FLAME ON

[Petoonya]

Regarding "where there's a will there's a way".....

 

Hope this will not offend those with delicate sensibilities, but....

As to the potential combining of liquids/gels and using a device for combustion...

I am a surgical nurse and here is no end to the various objects that can be stored/removed from (and inadvertantly discovered in) various body cavities. A bottle of Gatorade or a cell phone or flash camera? No problem for a determined terrorist.

 

How do you screen for something a terrorist wants to hide withIN his or her person if it's not metal?

[greatam]

That's just idiotic, in my very frustrated opinion. You folks okay with your freedoms being taken away? Great. I'm not.

 

I have heard this "freedom" mantra more than once in the last three days. Freedom does NOT mean refusing to let you board an airplane with liquids/gels. Taking away your freedom means NOT allowing you to travel, PERIOD. (Cuba, Vietnam, Russia pre-1990, etc).

 

These bans are all defensive moves; the thing that will really help this situation is to eliminate the terrorist groups themselves. But that, of course, means taking action, and when you take action, sometimes it means you go to war. And of course, that's not a popular option, is it?

 

I say blow 'em all up, INCLUDING the sympathizers. You should read some of the stuff CAIR (Council for Arab Islamic Relations) is spouting in Phoenix ("the poor boys", "from good homes", "misguided youth", etc) and some of the news flashes colleagues and clients are sending me from the UK. Evidently, a large part of the Muslim community in the UK is DEFENDING these guys, even though it was a Muslim who made the initial contact to MI6 (thank you, who ever you are).

 

Something very spooky-right in the Heartland of our country. 3 of the Egyptian students were arrested yesterday in DES MOINES, IOWA , 1 was arrested in MINNEAPOLIS (home of Zacharias Moussaoi (sp?), and there is a large Muslim camp right outside Cedar Rapids. When will the people of the US GET IT?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939124/posts

[greatam]

After something I saw on Strafor (industry intelliegence reports), I did a very simply Google search for "binary explosive". I came up with these two, readily available over the internet. FIXOR would definitely do the trick, Tannerite would have to be modified somewhat. Besides all the speculation of what chemicals were actually going to be used out of the UK, these products are AVAILABLE to anyone TODAY.

 

http://www.fixor.com/

When you open the home page, check out the instructions (PDF) for use under brochure.

 

http://www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html

[gooselace]

I have heard this "freedom" mantra more than once in the last three days. Freedom does NOT mean refusing to let you board an airplane with liquids/gels. Taking away your freedom means NOT allowing you to travel, PERIOD. (Cuba, Vietnam, Russia pre-1990, etc).

 

And freedom is meaningless if you're not alive to enjoy it, just like all those electronic devices, cosmetics, and beverages.

[Globaliser]

So all the terrorist has to do is get a job at one of these shops and then "sell" his liquid item to his fellow terrorist who boards the plane with the "sealed" item. Didn't I read somewhere that one of the arrested terrorists was an employee at Heathrow with a full access pass? I guess they are still a few loopholes in the current liquid ban policy.

Um, no. How do you think the terrorist would get his fake liquid item into the shop, when he can't take it past the security checkpoint himself?

[Globaliser]

You folks okay with your freedoms being taken away? Great. I'm not.

If restricting completely trivial freedoms like what I can take on board an aircraft means that I can enjoy the most important freedom of being alive, I'll take that any day.

 

And if you take the opposite view, I'll be very happy to see your freedom to travel taken away from you.

[loungelizard]

I don't really think this ban is totally ridiculous...I understand the reasons for it, and I would rather be safe than sorry, but I do wonder about the timing of it. If liquids or gels could be detonated so easily, then WHY have they been allowed on planes all these years? Suddenly they become potentially deadly and must be screened out? Do you think our security agencies weren't aware of these type of explosives? How safe have we really been over the last decade if these items were allowed onboard planes? This is not about my freedoms being taken away...all I have to do is pack a bit differently...it's more to do with how ineffective the powers that be really are. As citizens, we should be critical of their decisions and speak our minds...instead we follow orders and react blindly without questioning their actions. I was raised to question authority and I do, and if I am wrong...so be it...but at least I have utilized one of my basic freedoms...and that is freedom of thought.

[Globaliser]

I don't really think this ban is totally ridiculous...I understand the reasons for it, and I would rather be safe than sorry, but I do wonder about the timing of it. If liquids or gels could be detonated so easily, then WHY have they been allowed on planes all these years?

The timing is because of the existence of the plot that was just about to use such devices. And now that everyone knows about them, there is a residual risk that has to be guarded against.

[Ekaj]

And if you take the opposite view, I'll be very happy to see your freedom to travel taken away from you.

 

What a horrible thing to say! :rolleyes: So, basically, if my opinion differs from yours, you are very happy to have my freedoms taken away? Really? There's a term for that - it's called a Dictatorship. Does anyone else see the irony of his statement?

 

Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions and feelings. Just b/c mine are different from yours, doesn't mean they are wrong. And I'm more than a bit surprised that Globaliser believes that those who have opinions that differ from his should not have the same freedoms. Interesting theory, Globaliser, interesting theory.

[dclark]

These flight restrictions are pure foolishness. I am sick of hearing the ignorant bah out "better safe than sorry".

Here's a newsflash- objects don't blow up planes, terrorist blow up planes!

Top security experts are in agreement of how foolish the U.S. is acting. What the U.S. should do is go after passengers who show signs of distress. One expert said "It is hard to look calm when you know you are going to die".

Of course, I can hear the pleas from the ACLY saying it is racial profiling.

So, in the era of political correctness, the little old lady from Des Moines and the little baby wearing a diaper will both be inspected, because we don't want that nervous looking guy from Saudi Arabia who is sweating profusely, to feel like he is being singled out!

So far all of you "safer than sorry" sheep out there, what will you do when some terrorist sneaks a bomb in his anal cavity? Will you all gleefully submit to a full body cavity search at the gate?

[Globaliser]

Just b/c mine are different from yours, doesn't mean they are wrong. And I'm more than a bit surprised that Globaliser believes that those who have opinions that differ from his should not have the same freedoms.

We're not talking theory here. We're talking about a bunch of people who were plotting to blow up aircraft, which might have included my aircraft next week.

 

Some freedoms are more important than others. I want to live; I do not want to be blown up.

 

If you want to play Russian roulette with your own life because you cannot tolerate a little inconvenience in relation to lip balm, toothpaste, and sandwiches, that's your prerogative.

 

I'd want you off my aircraft.

[Globaliser]

Top security experts are in agreement of how foolish the U.S. is acting. What the U.S. should do is go after passengers who show signs of distress.

I think these people should go and study the airline that makes most use of these techniques.

 

It only does so in conjunction with baggage searches that make the TSA's look positively superficial.

[raytownlady]

I don't this the food question has been answered yet, Is food allowed to be bought on in your carry on luggage. I realize there is a ban on any liquids but what about solid food. DH is diabetic and I like to bring a small snack just in case his blood sugar levels act up.

[Princess Patches]

Raytownlady,

 

I have not heard about any ban on bringing food on board the flight. So I think cheese and crackers are fine (as long as the cheese is not in liquid form).

 

Globaliser,

 

You make some good points but I think your posts would be more effective if you were less critical of others who disagree with you. If you can tone it down a notch it would be helpful.

 

I think the point that there may be other more effective ways to catch terrorists rather than having all passengers board with essentially nothing but their plane tickets is a good one. I agree with the point made by others that interviewing and profiling could be more effective tools that are not being well used right now.

 

Remember it was detective work and tips that led to the foiling of the current plot. It was not gate or baggage checks that uncovered it. Remember it was an alert flight attendant and passengers that foiled the shoe bomber and not gate checks. If (when) there are more terrorist attempts I think it will be some alert person noticing people acting strangely and not baggage checks that will nab the bad guys.

 

My point about the continued selling of liquid items at the shops beyond the security checkpoint is that if someone had a full access pass (like one of these terrorists did) it seems to me that it would be fairly easy for this person to smuggle in his contraband liquid in the form of a perfume bottle or whatever and get in on the plane that way.

[Ekaj]

Globaliser,

 

You make some good points but I think your posts would be more effective if you were less critical of others who disagree with you. If you can tone it down a notch it would be helpful.

 

Exactly. Thank you, Patches. Globaliser, I have noticed that in many of your posts, you come down hard on people who have any kind of different viewpoint than yourself. I wonder why this is, as I would find it incredibly boring to live in a world where everyone agrees on everything. I'm not realy "into" debate, but I do like to hear other people's viewpoints, and be allowed to state mine. However, when those other people start attacking and saying things that are completely out of line, as you did, then I have no interest in continuing to discuss issues with them.

 

I didn't get so much as a "maybe I was too harsh" from you - not that I expected it. I just find it odd that someone who goes on and on about the 'freedom of living', so to speak, would be so willing to make statements that are, by their very nature, dictatorial. What an angry life you seem to live.

 

I think the point that there may be other more effective ways to catch terrorists rather than having all passengers board with essentially nothing but their plane tickets is a good one. I agree with the point made by others that interviewing and profiling could be more effective tools that are not being well used right now.

 

That is my thought as well. I also agree with what dclark said. In addition, we do need to be aware of our surroundings, and not just sit back if we see something suspicious. I think sometimes we can be lulled into a false sense of security, assuming that the authorities will keep us safe, but that is not always the case. Just like when I go out by myself at night, I keep an eye out. Should police be keeping my city safe? Of course, and they generally do a pretty good job. But they can't stop everyone, and so it's up to me to watch out for myself. Granted, a plane flight is different, but it's the same basic concept. And after 9/11, passengers were very aware, and did help stop a couple of crazy people trying to get at the cockpit. That's as it should be, IMHO.

 

I still, however, stand by my original statement that no matter what we do as preventative and defensive actions on the ground, we need to find and stop these terrorist groups, get at the source of their funding, and help establish better governments in the countries that would breed these terrorists. Wouldn't that do so much more than taking away water bottles and lipstick?

[Globaliser]

I just find it odd that someone who goes on and on about the 'freedom of living', so to speak, would be so willing to make statements that are, by their very nature, dictatorial.

Not "freedom of living", just the freedom to be alive. Even if much less important "freedoms", like keeping my lip gloss with me, are taken away.

 

And if I have strong views about some of these things, maybe it comes from knowing that the measures that have been brought in have been designed by those who have lifetimes' worth of understanding about how terrorists work, and have been reviewed and approved by people who have the keenest possible understanding of the economic, social and practical costs of those measures. Nobody - including those who have implemented these measures - want them in place for a minute longer than necessary.

 

And maybe because too many people voicing opinions about air transport security base them on nothing more than an uninformed gut feeling about what works and what doesn't, and a dislike of inconvenience. Many of these people - particularly in the US - have never lived with terrorism any closer than the other side of their TV screens. They've never had the experience of working in a building, to which a bomber was on his way when he managed accidentally to blow himself up. They've never had the experience of being on a bus headed for the very spot where another bus blew up 5 minutes ago. And they've certainly not lived through decades of this.

 

So, Ekaj and Princess Peaches, if you've been through those experiences but you still feel what you say, then I owe you an apology.

My point about the continued selling of liquid items at the shops beyond the security checkpoint is that if someone had a full access pass (like one of these terrorists did) it seems to me that it would be fairly easy for this person to smuggle in his contraband liquid in the form of a perfume bottle or whatever and get in on the plane that way.

Such a person couldn't get his perfume bottle into the shop, because it would be taken away from him at security. Staff go through the same security screening as passengers, and have been subject to the same restrictions over the last few days about what they could take through to the airside areas.

I still, however, stand by my original statement that no matter what we do as preventative and defensive actions on the ground, we need to find and stop these terrorist groups, get at the source of their funding, and help establish better governments in the countries that would breed these terrorists. Wouldn't that do so much more than taking away water bottles and lipstick?

With this, I agree. But these should be actions that we take in addition to the defences that are in place around the airports and aircraft, not instead of. Otherwise, we leave open the holes that allow the terrorists to strike, just as the holes had been left wide open in the US for the sake of "convenience" on 11 September 2001.

[gooselace]

These flight restrictions are pure foolishness. I am sick of hearing the ignorant bah out "better safe than sorry".

Here's a newsflash- objects don't blow up planes, terrorist blow up planes!

Top security experts are in agreement of how foolish the U.S. is acting. What the U.S. should do is go after passengers who show signs of distress. One expert said "It is hard to look calm when you know you are going to die".

Of course, I can hear the pleas from the ACLY saying it is racial profiling.

So, in the era of political correctness, the little old lady from Des Moines and the little baby wearing a diaper will both be inspected, because we don't want that nervous looking guy from Saudi Arabia who is sweating profusely, to feel like he is being singled out!

So far all of you "safer than sorry" sheep out there, what will you do when some terrorist sneaks a bomb in his anal cavity? Will you all gleefully submit to a full body cavity search at the gate?

 

There were pictures of some of the 9/11 terrorists as the prepared to board to plane on which they were to die and they looked very calm and cool. On the other hand, in these times, many innocent passengers might well be sweating profusely, from anxiety.

 

And, FYI, that little old lady from Des Moines could well be a Muslim terrorist -- there are plenty of Muslims in Iowa and not all of them young and dark complected. And terrorists, like drug traffickers, have no compunction about using baies to conceal their banned substances.

 

Finally, does anyone remember what the Oklahoma City bombers looked like? Would a profiler have kept them off a plane?

[Princess Patches]

Globaliser,

 

Apology accepted. You forget that the worst terrorist incident in terms of lost lives, 9/11, happened right here on U.S. soil and not in Europe So we do live with terrorism in our lives, albeit not as long as those in the UK have lived with it.

 

I lived in London during the 1980's and remember multiple occasions when I couldn't take the tube because Scotland Yard was defusing some bomb and the tube station was blocked off or the street was blocked off. I lived three blocks from Harrod's shortly after the bomb went off there and remember being scared to walk by, always wondering if it would happen again. I remember walking a couple of miles to work because I just didn't want the anxiety of taking the tube or the bus even though there had been no specific IRA threat that day.

 

I think everyone is worried right now because it seems like the terrorists always find another way no matter what we do. We are all wondering if the measures we are taking are the best strategy and whether they will work.

[billybob123]

For what it's worth, those who believe profiling will stop attacks... recall that one of the London subway/transit bombers was of Jamaican ancestry, and at least one or two of the ALLEGED (recall also, this "innocent until proven guilty" idea... - not that I'm denying that any of the recent London arrests are necessary!) Heathrow plotters are of British descent and have recently converted their religion.

 

Also remember that the worst terrorist attack on the US prior to 9/11 was perpetrated by an white christian American.

 

How do we profile these people?

[greatam]

For what it's worth, those who believe profiling will stop attacks... recall that one of the London subway/transit bombers was of Jamaican ancestry, and at least one or two of the ALLEGED (recall also, this "innocent until proven guilty" idea... - not that I'm denying that any of the recent London arrests are necessary!) Heathrow plotters are of British descent and have recently converted their religion.

 

You are trying to equate terrorists with common criminals and investigate and prosecute terrorists AS common criminals. This was the big failing of US policy pre 911. Jamie Gorelick's "wall" was found to be one of the BIGGEST problems, per the 911 commission. NO cooperation between FBI, NSA and CIA (to name a few alphabet agencies). The FBI had to treat the cases as CRIMINAL prosecutions, with all the "crap" that goes into building a CRIMINAL prosecution. These criminal prosecutions had to follow all the RULES, even for non citizens AND illegals (several of the 911 hijackers were illegal-expired visas). Terrorists do not play by the rules and neither should we.

 

Muslims of British descent AND only two recently converted (IIRC). All the others have families who have been involved in Muslim issues and politics for years.

 

Also remember that the worst terrorist attack on the US prior to 9/11 was perpetrated by an white christian American.

 

PLEEZE!!! Isolated incident, caused by the militia mentality of the White Supremacists, in retalitation for Waco (thank you, Janet Reno). ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with international terror stemming from Jihad.

 

How do we profile these people?

 

Get rid of the ACLU for starters (or severely limit their power). Prosecute LEAKS (often found on the front page of The New York Times and Washington Post). Institute some of the British "secrets" laws. FORCE the Muslim community in the US to STAND UP and state terror is WRONG or pull aside EVERY Muslim trying to board an aircraft. Thank goodness, Norm Mineta (MR. PC himself), is out of DOT. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot03403.htm

[Globaliser]

You forget that the worst terrorist incident in terms of lost lives, 9/11, happened right here on U.S. soil and not in Europe So we do live with terrorism in our lives, albeit not as long as those in the UK have lived with it.

But still, many (maybe most) people in the US only experienced that on the other side of their TV screens.