Originally Posted by
FWAAA
I agree that the UK-US liquid scare from August 10, 2006, is a farce as well. I voted for Pres Bush but it was obvious at the time that Bush and Blair needed a "wag the dog" diversion to keep their populations in constant fear of the always-present terrorists and to demonstrate that they were on the ball and doing something about all those terrorists. IMO, that's the reason behind it.
agreed.
Abolish the whole thing? Yeah, that's gonna happen now that the UK and the US have basically imposed this 100ml crap on the entire world. They acted like the future of the planet depended on the 100ml/one liter bag requirement and the confiscation of billions of dollars worth of water and duty free products.
If the restrictions are to continue, with all the inconvenience and wastage that come with them, might we at least get them right? The restrictions are irksome enough, but if they're totally pointless as well, the level of ridicule becomes mind-boggling.
If it only takes a couple litres of the right liquids, then why haven't the terrorists who hate us blown airplanes out of the sky by combining their 100ml bottles onboard? Half a dozen co-conspirators could each bring about 10 100ml bottles (that's what I can put in my one litre bag) plus their larger contact lens solution (I've never had a security person do anything with mine). So each terrorist could bring a liter and a half onboard. Large, empty bottles are routinely ignored here in the USA by the TSA, as long as they're empty.
To be fair, this is considerably more difficult and fraught with risk of getting caught than the AMS loophole. It relies on numerous people getting large numbers of dodgy looking 100ml bottles through. I've regularly seen 100ml bottles inspected when they look ropey - I remember when my LHR staff wanted to test my girlfriend's make-up for something. It's possible, yes, but in terms of ease and risk, the AMS loophole is a different league, and if as you imply, you're also aware of it, you'll know this.
And why didn't any terrorists do it prior to August 10, 2006? It's not new chemistry. It doesn't involve anything recently invented.
Why did the London tube bombers take two years after the UK joined the US in the invasion of Iraq to strike? There was absolutely nothing stopping them doing it the next week if they wanted. Terrorists don't generally rush into things at the first opportunity, and saying "If it was possible, why hasn't it already been done?" just doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.