Liquid Bomb plot

[WildCat]

In the USA guns kill 30 000 people per year, give or take, and injure another 60 000, give or take.

Not from the semi-automatic "assault' rifles that many want to ban.

How many per year were killed in Australia prior to the gun ban? IIRC, you had one incident and decided to ban them. Not trying to turn this into a gun thread, but rather trying to find the actual risk you're willing to take in general.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just thought I'd post this so Kevin could have a big olde laugh about it

 

[Par]

The Kantian motivation is defensible as long as you are still under the false impression that security theatre is real security, or that the threat of a liquid bomb being assembled on a plane is a real threat. Once it's been explained to you that it's not, you're out of defenses for the liquids ban based on Kantian pure reason.

Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and beg that question. I’m glad to see that you seem to agree that it’s quite possible for people – even if it transpires that are simply wrong – to be motivated by generally honourable factors, as opposed to a contemptibly pathetic and snivelling fear of an utterly nebulous and vanishingly unlikely threat to their own safety.

 

[Kestrel]

It's not inside knowledge that professional chemists have said that the idea of downing a plane by smuggling precursor chemicals on board disguised as safe liquids, and then combining them to make a bomb, is ridiculously impractical.

The plotters in this case had not created the special bottles required to disguise the chemicals as sports drinks. They had never tried mixing the precursor chemicals. They also hadn't bought airline tickets or even obtained the visas and passports necessary for the plan. The plotters probably did not have the technical skill to carry out the plan.

But it doesn't mater if the plot was actually practical, it was useful for keeping the citizens of our nation cowering in fear.

The Homeland Security alert level has recently been raised to Orange.

I do not expect it to be lowered as long as the Republicans control the White House.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not from the semi-automatic "assault' rifles that many want to ban.

How many per year were killed in Australia prior to the gun ban? IIRC, you had one incident and decided to ban them. Not trying to turn this into a gun thread, but rather trying to find the actual risk you're willing to take in general.

[ETA: "The gun ban" is an American misconception with no basis in reality. Guns are not banned in Australia, and in fact for some people such as farmers they are very easy to obtain].

I think that focusing on any subset of guns is misguided from a gun control point of view. You might as well focus purely on pearl-handled revolvers with bells on, and argue that because such guns cause very few or no deaths that possession of those particular guns should not be controlled. While I don't support laws that make some guns harder to own than others on irrational bases, I do support laws that make some guns harder to own on objective bases like limited civilian usefulness, usefulness for spree killing, how easily concealed they are and whatnot.

Australia has 60-100 gun homicides per year, 15-30 accidental deaths and a few hundred suicides. It's not a huge concern compared to smoking, alcohol, unsafe vehicles and so on but it's still a concern. I also think you're forgetting the Hoddle Street Massacre, which also involved a semiautomatic rifle among other weapons, and I don't doubt that previous gun-related events with large death tolls (Queen Street massacre, Milperra Massacre) influenced public opinion in favour of gun control generally even if semiautomatic weapons weren't central to them.

Based on that background I'm in favour of making people jump through a few hoops to own a gun, including making them explain why they need or want one. I wouldn't be in favour of patting down everyone who gets on a bus for guns, though, to pick an example of a measure I think would cause a public nuisance far beyond any benefit it might have.

Just thought I'd post this so Kevin could have a big olde laugh about it

Do you not understand the difference between an appeal to emotion and an intelligent argument?

Or do you understand the difference and not care?

 

[Par]

The plotters in this case had not created the special bottles required to disguise the chemicals as sports drinks. They had never tried mixing the precursor chemicals. They also hadn't bought airline tickets or even obtained the visas and passports necessary for the plan. The plotters probably did not have the technical skill to carry out the plan. But it doesn't mater if the plot was actually practical, it was useful for keeping the citizens of our nation cowering in fear.

I can see why you’ve mentioned it, but of course none of that is actually pertinent to the question of whether or not the method is in any way feasible. That is, it might not have been practical in this specific case, but it doesn’t follow from that that it’s an impractical method per se.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you not understand the difference between an appeal to emotion and an intelligent argument?

Or do you understand the difference and not care?

I wasn't making an argument, I was making a point, shame you appeared to have missed it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I can see why you’ve mentioned it, but of course none of that is actually pertinent to the question of whether or not the method is in any way feasible. That is, it might not have been practical in this specific case, but it doesn’t follow from that that it’s an impractical method per se.

I'm glad someone else noticed this. The ban isn't to stop people making TATP onboard planes, it's to stop them making ANYTHING dangerous on board planes. There are far more things, and things far more deadly than TATP that could be smuggled onboard in innocent looking packaging. Consider if you will the situation where a terrorist smuggled the precursors for Sarin onboard an A-340 or 474-800... Not a happy thought.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can see why you’ve mentioned it, but of course none of that is actually pertinent to the question of whether or not the method is in any way feasible. That is, it might not have been practical in this specific case, but it doesn’t follow from that that it’s an impractical method per se.

Timeline in order:

1. Person is killed by nitroglycerine bomb on plane.

2. Nothing happens.

3. Hilariously inept plotters fantasise about blowing up a plane with liquid bomb precursors.

4. Panic! All hair gel over 3 ounces must be tossed on to the giant heap of liquids too dangerous to fly! Make sure you buy a bottle of water from the store inside security though, you wouldn't want to get dehydrated on the plane.

Now you can argue that the panic is media-driven and the US TSA is just responding to the media in CYA fashion. Or you can argue that the US government, particularly the TSA, is deliberately creating stupid panics and the media goes along with it for ratings. What you can't argue is that any factor relevant to airline security changed with the discovery of the Lucozade plot. If liquid bombs were a threat they were a threat known long before, and the plot that was discovered was no threat to anybody.

(Of course the Lucozade loonies should still be locked up, if only to make sure that they never have the chance to work on a more practical scheme for mass murder).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I wasn't making an argument, I was making a point, shame you appeared to have missed it.

I'd ask what you think the difference is supposed to be, but I think you could take your best shot at explaining your thought processes and none of us would be any the wiser for it. Best to just let it slide, I think.

I'm glad someone else noticed this. The ban isn't to stop people making TATP onboard planes, it's to stop them making ANYTHING dangerous on board planes. There are far more things, and things far more deadly than TATP that could be smuggled onboard in innocent looking packaging. Consider if you will the situation where a terrorist smuggled the precursors for Sarin onboard an A-340 or 474-800... Not a happy thought.

Oh my God, any liquid could be Sarin!
Oh my God, any solid could be plastic explosive! Or anthrax!
Oh my God, any gas could be Sarin too!

I think we need to ban matter on aeroplanes. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[gtc]

In the USA guns kill 30 000 people per year, give or take, and injure another 60 000, give or take. Some of those would have died anyway, some wouldn't, but there's a five figure death toll. Even if you limit the discussion to accidental deaths it's still around 1500/year.

We aren't just talking about America though. The liquid bomb plot involved aeroplanes from London to North America and the security procedures that we are discussing are used throughout the world. The proper comparson would be all airline terrorist incidents (I would consider incidents which included hijacking as well as attempting to destroy the planes as well).

 

[Par]

I can see why you’ve mentioned it, but of course none of that is actually pertinent to the question of whether or not the method is in any way feasible. That is, it might not have been practical in this specific case, but it doesn’t follow from that that it’s an impractical method per se.

Timeline in order:

1. Person is killed by nitroglycerine bomb on plane.

2. Nothing happens.

3. Hilariously inept plotters fantasise about blowing up a plane with liquid bomb precursors.

4. Panic! All hair gel over 3 ounces must be tossed on to the giant heap of liquids too dangerous to fly! Make sure you buy a bottle of water from the store inside security though, you wouldn't want to get dehydrated on the plane.

Now you can argue that the panic is media-driven and the US TSA is just responding to the media in CYA fashion. Or you can argue that the US government, particularly the TSA, is deliberately creating stupid panics and the media goes along with it for ratings. What you can't argue is that any factor relevant to airline security changed with the discovery of the Lucozade plot. If liquid bombs were a threat they were a threat known long before, and the plot that was discovered was no threat to anybody.

(Of course the Lucozade loonies should still be locked up, if only to make sure that they never have the chance to work on a more practical scheme for mass murder).

I see. I may come to aspects of that later, but in fairness I was making a specific point about Kestrel’s argument above, which seems to run thusly:

• In this case, the plotters were still a long way from bringing their plan to fruition. In fact, it’s somewhat doubtful whether they’d ever have managed to do so.
• Therefore, the highlighting of the plot and the subsequent security measures were merely a cynical ploy for the purposes of “keeping… citizens… cowering in fear.”

I merely wished to point out that – even if the conclusion transpires to be true – this argument for it is something of a non sequitur.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'd ask what you think the difference is supposed to be, but I think you could take your best shot at explaining your thought processes and none of us would be any the wiser for it. Best to just let it slide, I think.

I doubt there'd be a lot of point since you wouldn't understand anyway.

Oh my God, any liquid could be Sarin!
Oh my God, any solid could be plastic explosive! Or anthrax!
Oh my God, any gas could be Sarin too!

I think we need to ban matter on aeroplanes. It's the only way to be sure.

So you think it's be a better idea to run chemical testing on every singe gel and liquid that someone wants to take onboard a plane?

 

[Kestrel]

I can see why you’ve mentioned it, but of course none of that is actually pertinent to the question of whether or not the method is in any way feasible. That is, it might not have been practical in this specific case, but it doesn’t follow from that that it’s an impractical method per se.

So far, nobody has provided any evidence that this method is practical even for a talented gang of terrorists.

 

[Kestrel]

So you think it's be a better idea to run chemical testing on every singe gel and liquid that someone wants to take onboard a plane?

Why don't we plug a big hole in TSA security measures first before starting chemical scans of denture adhesive?

When the TSA person checks your ID, they use the same technology that bar bouncers have used for decades. They look at the ID, they look at you and decide that the ID looks OK and the photo looks like you.

If the system had been set up by someone with a clue, the person checking your drivers license would scan your ID number into a computer. That computer than validates the ID and display the photo that should be on that ID. It could also notify TSA if there was any reason to do more than a routine search of this person. All this could be done easily using off the shelf technology.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why don't we plug a big hole in TSA security measures first before starting chemical scans of denture adhesive?

When the TSA person checks your ID, they use the same technology that bar bouncers have used for decades. They look at the ID, they look at you and decide that the ID looks OK and the photo looks like you.

If the system had been set up by someone with a clue, the person checking your drivers license would scan your ID number into a computer. That computer than validates the ID and display the photo that should be on that ID. It could also notify TSA if there was any reason to do more than a routine search of this person. All this could be done easily using off the shelf technology.

They are moving to that system presently, one of the reasons we're all going to be required to get new Biometric Passports and the US is introducting the Real ID standards for Driver's Licences. Look at how the conspirasits are treating that.

By the way, I'm not actually advocating for chemical testing of ever product a person brings on board a plane and I have previously stated in this thread that they are taking it to ridiculous extremes that they shouldn't, but at the same time they are charged with protecting people. If someone did smuggle a liquid threat onto a plane and try something, even if they only killed two or three people (or justy themselves) who are the ones that carry the can? As far as the airlines are conserned it is better and far, far easier to simply have a blanket ban, no liquids and gels, than to specifically identify what is safe and what is a potential threat. It has nothing to do with trying to scare people with tewrrorism, it has everything to do with trying to protect the companies bottom lines by preventing more lawsuits if something happens.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So you think it's be a better idea to run chemical testing on every singe gel and liquid that someone wants to take onboard a plane?

That assumes facts not in evidence, specifically that there is something to be particularly worried about with regard to people bringing gels and liquids on to planes.

It's misguided to even try to set up security screens at airports to catch every conceivable device or substance an idiot savant terrorist might try to smuggle on board, if doing so inconveniences passengers substantially and there are easier means available elsewhere for terrorists to cause trouble. It's like putting more and more locks on the front door while leaving the window no better secured - it might look impressive, but the only intruder it actually inconveniences is an intruder who is a total idiot. Yes, maybe your home will be attacked by a total idiot who is only just stopped by that very last lock you just put on, but that doesn't make it a rational security strategy.

 

[Kestrel]

They are moving to that system presently, one of the reasons we're all going to be required to get new Biometric Passports and the US is introducting the Real ID standards for Driver's Licences. Look at how the conspirasits are treating that.

Real ID and Biometric passports both ignore the fact that communications are now widely available and cheap. All the ID really provides is an index to look up the real data in a database. The one already in your pocket will do just fine.

It's not like the old days where you had to send a messenger on horseback to verify a document.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That assumes facts not in evidence, specifically that there is something to be particularly worried about with regard to people bringing gels and liquids on to planes.

It's misguided to even try to set up security screens at airports to catch every conceivable device or substance an idiot savant terrorist might try to smuggle on board, if doing so inconveniences passengers substantially and there are easier means available elsewhere for terrorists to cause trouble. It's like putting more and more locks on the front door while leaving the window no better secured - it might look impressive, but the only intruder it actually inconveniences is an intruder who is a total idiot. Yes, maybe your home will be attacked by a total idiot who is only just stopped by that very last lock you just put on, but that doesn't make it a rational security strategy.

interesting analogy, and rather apt, certainly putting more locks on the door will simply prompt a burgler to go through the window, however remove the locks and they will simply enter through the door again

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Real ID and Biometric passports both ignore the fact that communications are now widely available and cheap. All the ID really provides is an index to look up the real data in a database. The one already in your pocket will do just fine.

It's not like the old days where you had to send a messenger on horseback to verify a document.

the real ID act also ensures all state-issued IDs have the information that is needed for the database, and a means to access it quickly with a computer