biscuit.

But is it?

I share your scepticism on most things. For long and weary I thought these guys were dreamers or bull!!!!ters or attention seekers.

I never thought that they could do a proper liquids bomb.

I now realise that they prolly could.

We could move on to better ways to stop this sort of thing and have a big old chat about it if you like.:)

Personally, FWIW, I think most terrorist action is well and firmly based.

In other words, they are trying to redress a completely legitimate grievance usually caused by our, or some other countries', rather !!!!ty and exploitative foreign policy.

And who could blame them? I might take similar action myself, were our roles to be reversed.

Stop terrorism? Easy! Stop !!!!ting on people!:ooh:

BarbiesBoyfriend,
I think the earlier posts make it clear that while in principle it is entirely possible to make a liquid bomb, in a practical sense it's an absurdly low risk on a commercial flight compared to many others. On a risk/reward basis it doesn't hold up = not worth the effort and disturbance. Snag is none of the public, press or politicians understand risk.

Or they wouldn't say things like " Safety is paramount". Nope, it's not, it's a matter of economics. Or of emotion. Every time.
We humans ain't good at logic. (try Dan Gardner on " The Science & Politics of Fear". Interesting book.)

FWIW I very much agree with your comment about terrorists and terrorism. Perspective makes a big difference.

By comparison to what other acts on a commercial flight, can the risk of a liquid bomb be described as absurdly low?

In respect to practicality there are numerous cases of home made bombs causing carnage as well as others that were either thwathed (shoe bomber) or failed to detonate through a quirk in how the bomb was mixed ( july 21st bombers x 4)


Mickjoebill

Biscuit.

Nope.

It's not an absurdly low risk.


For these guys, it's 'goodbye world' for a long long time- and rightly so.:ok:

I had to be convinced, and I am.