No one is complaining about being screened for explosives, guns, hand grenades or semtex,
Excellent, we're now down to talking about the details rather than the main principles of security.
Can you kindly explain how this scenario correlates to taking water, nail clippers or prescribed medication through security. We ALL know these things are about as much use to a terrorist as t*ts are on a bull.
It's been proven that UK-based terrorists planned to smuggle the ingredients for explosives onto a plane by disguising then as drinks. That's why there's now a limit of 100ml on liquids. Although it has been shown (I dont say conclusively) that such an explosive would have been ineffective, it's also possible that other dangerous liquids might be used, such as neat alcohol (flammable) or acids.
So it's sensible to prevent other than very small quantities of liquids being carried on board.
And if aircrew are thirsty, I'm sure there will be water on board the plane.
The prescription drugs.... well, that does seem a bit strange, and I dont defend it.
Nailclippers.... am I right in thinking that the 9/11 terrorists used very small weapons (knives) to overcome the crew? And dont some nailclippers include a blade?
So to be safe, it's better to include a blanket ban, dont you think. Why in any case would aircrew need nailclippers available during a flight?
And before anyone says 'pilots could crash the plane anyway', I think we've established the principle that what we're trying to protect against is the possibility that aircrew could be coerced to carrying something on board, or could be impersonated.