Originally Posted by
747FC
There have been at least two "successful" cases in which liquid explosives are known to have brought down or seriously damaged commercial airliners, Korean Air 858 and Phillippine Air 434, being just two examples. There are several other known plots using liquid explosives that have been foiled. The liquid ban was not a "knee jerk reaction," but one that --while causing endless hassles to the traveling public-- has kept other planes and people from going down. My hat is off to the intelligence agencies that are least trying to find ways to cope with evolving threats.
Two flights out of how many millions over the period? Just to put it in perspective, more planes have crashed & people died over that same time period due to aircraft structural failures or improper maintenance.
Risk assessment means actually assessing the risks and acting on the basis of the facts, not the irrational fear of what hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen. The fact that EU airlines aren't dropping out of the sky like flies puts paid to your theory that the "intelligence" services are protecting us from anything.