Yea, that just about sums it up. « Destructive Penmanship

Yea, that just about sums it up.

So my friend Tim recently dropped his iPod down an airplane toilet on accident causing a major bomb scare. The story itself is incredibly funny and has received a lot of attention online, but it has also brought to light a lot of controversy regarding the conflict between safety and the errosion of civil rights. Not all of this discussion has been relevant, particularly because the event itself took place in Canada, but much of it has been very interesting. Looking through the numerous sources that cited the event I found one thread which I felt addressed many of the issues with our modern world and the war on terror that have always seemed most important to me. One person argues in favor of increased safety measures at the cost of, at least some degree of, personal freedom while the other argues vehemently against this point. I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to post both sides in order to be fair.

The Original Story

Amaranthar says on August 27th, 2006 at 9:35 am:
Yeesh, where’s the cooperative spirit here? I can see legitimate reasons for all the things done. Even you, Amber.

Amber says on August 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pm:

That’s so ridiculous. Every single one of those passengers should have pitched a fit.

Having had the pleasure of running my mouth and winding up sitting in the little white room with very VERY serious TSA peeps, the last thing you really want to do is pitch a fit. It’s one thing for them to go through their badass motions, and it’s entirely another for them to think they’re losing control of the situation. You don’t want them to think they’re losing control. Respect their authoritah and then complain later if you must, when you’re on the outside.

Being antagonistic is a classic symptom of hatefull people, such as terrorists. By running your mouth, you placed yourself in a “more likely” status.

Even the “if you were drunk together” thing may have some meaning, in a phsycological way. I’m not saying a person can’t respond with indignation, I’m just saying that they might be fishing for reactions.

Let these people do their jobs. As long as they are doing them, we are safer. It’s when they stop doing their jobs that we better start sweating more.

Wanderer says on August 27th, 2006 at 11:45 pm:
The required investigation should be simple:

Is it in fact an iPod? Yes/no.

If it’s an iPod, no need to panic.

If it’s not an iPod, then you might want to find out what he’d do when he’s drunk with some chick from WoW, or what’s on his laptop.

And why is it suspicious that he didn’t notice it was missing until someone said they found it? Have you never dropped something (a pen, maybe, or a cell phone?) and not realized you had dropped it until someone handed it back to you?

Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither. That wasn’t said by some ivory-tower philosopher — it was said by a revolutionary, someone who survived a brutal war, one in which the enemy used any and every tactic at their disposal to put down the revolt. It was said by a man who lived in turbulent times which make anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes look like a walk in the park. His name, if you don’t know, was Benjamin Franklin.

Then there was a man who said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. That was during a war which cost the lives of tens of millions of people. A war in which everyone knew someone who had died fighting overseas. A war in which rationing and hardship were a way of life on the home front. A war against one of the most evil regimes ever to exist, a monster which was, among other things, actively trying to develop atomic weapons and had every intention of using them on us. On our cities. On the man who said those words.

What has happened to us?

Let these people do their jobs. As long as they are doing them, we are safer.

Safety bought at the price of freedom is no more than slavery.

There is yet one more patriot whose words I will quote here:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

I stand with Benjamin Franklin, and Franklin Roosevelt, and Patrick Henry. The illusion of safety bought at the price of freedom is a devil’s bargain.

Amaranthar says on August 28th, 2006 at 10:42 am:
I don’t think some of you quite understand how an iPod can be used by terrorists.

First, it can send a simple signal to trigger another item elsewhere, detonating an explosive. This is the same as using a cell phone like this. Cell phones were used to set off the explosions that killed around 200 people, and wounded well over 1,000, in Spain on the commuter trains a few years back.
The recent plan to blow up 10 planes flying from Europe to the US, foiled by the British, included iPods as well as cell phones to set off the homemade gel explosives, causing the crackdown on liquids. Who knows how many people would have died.

Secondly, an iPod can be used as a homing device. The implications here would seem to be too difficult to use on continental flights, but a possibility on intercontinental or coastal flights.

In any case, these cell phones and iPods and similar devices look like any other. It would take an expert who knows what he’s looking for to detect the possible use for terrorism, and I highly doubt that there was one on that flight. I mean, it’s not like there’s a “dial this to set off explosions” on their lists.

Another Ben Franklin quote:
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

Wanderer, Franklin D. Roosevelt said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. He said it in 1933 in his inaugural address. Hitler, at the time, had not gained full power in Germany. Roosevelts comments were more about the depression which had just started. However, there might have been a hint of a global warning, since the events in Germany were looking pretty bad and Hitler was gaining power ruthlessly. Roosevelt might have had fears about major wars in Europe.

But speaking of WWII, what they did to US freedom and rights during that time was far more than now. It was war, and had to be done.

This is a war these days too. Things have to be done to ensure our survival.

Another Ben Franklin quote:
“We must all hang together, or assuradly we shall all hang separately”.

Skelanth, Lum is not your savior in this matter. I’m not sure how you’ll take this, but among many varied people doing many jobs, it is the politicians who lead the effort to save you. Chew on that one for a while.

And finally I’ll leave you with this. Don’t expect perfection from other people. Those involved in our security are as imperfect as the next person. Mistakes will be made aplenty. But they are doing the best they can. They need all of our cooperation in these matters. I’m not saying to blindly follow, but we have to give up a little freedom so they can do their job. So we can win this war. Because the alternative is to lose the war eventually. You would not like the amount of lost freedom in that case, in so many ways.

Wanderer says on August 28th, 2006 at 2:57 pm:
I don’t think some of you quite understand how an iPod can be used by terrorists.

Given that I am (among other things) an electronics technician by training, I suspect if one of us is a bit lacking in understanding there, the odds are it’s you.

First, it can send a simple signal to trigger another item elsewhere, detonating an explosive.

Now that would be a really amazing thing for a device which lacks both timing and wireless capabilities to be able to do. You do comprehend that these devices don’t work by magic, right?

This is the same as using a cell phone like this. Cell phones were used to set off the explosions that killed around 200 people, and wounded well over 1,000, in Spain on the commuter trains a few years back.

Last time I looked, though, cell phones were still permitted on airplanes. So, for that matter, were iPods. If either one was going to be used as some sort of remote activator (a job better left to something like the car alarm remote on zillions of people’s keyrings, by the way) it would work better if it was in someone’s pocket, or slipped into a seatback pouch next to the in-flight magazine, or in carryon luggage, or in fact just about anywhere other than in a toilet. Note: Electronics in general do not take well to being flushed. Trust me on this.

Also, for what it’s worth, the cell phones used in the Madrid bombings were not used for any type of remote-controlled activation. In fact, they were used as simple timers. Just like an alarm clock wired to a bundle of dynamite in a cartoon. Yeah, an expensive (and insecure) solution to a problem that really only needed a $5.98 digital travel alarm clock and a few parts from Radio Shack.

The recent plan to blow up 10 planes flying from Europe to the US, foiled by the British, included iPods as well as cell phones to set off the homemade gel explosives, causing the crackdown on liquids. Who knows how many people would have died.

Given the fact that it’s been coming out (albeit rather quietly) that the supposed bombers did not actually know how to carry out the plan they supposedly had in mind, and had in fact taken no active steps toward doing so, it’s highly unlikely that any connection with cell phones or iPods existed anywhere outside the minds of a few fearmongering hack journalists looking for another fraction of a point of ratings. Anyone who quotes a “high” but anonymous Congressional source, and ignores named experts and canonical books on the subject, is not a reliable reporter.

As for the homemade gel explosives: Yes, you can make explosives out of some common ingredients. But it is not just matter of just mixing part A and part B. It’s not that simple, and if you get it wrong, you blow off your fingers (but very little else). You can’t do it in an airplane seat, or a bathroom. You can’t do it quickly. Let’s say you’re trying to make TATP, which has been bandied around as the explosive in question. You have to wait for the reaction to run to completion, then filter out and dry the precipitate. This takes hours. Sorry, real life and real chemistry just don’t work like they do in the movies.

Secondly, an iPod can be used as a homing device. The implications here would seem to be too difficult to use on continental flights, but a possibility on intercontinental or coastal flights.

Holy mother of … oh, I can’t even figure out what deity would be sufficiently ludicrous here.

Let me try to get this across to you once again:

If an iPod could do any of the things you’re talking about (which it can’t, not on this planet, anyway) then it could do them equally effectively anywhere on the airplane. In the cargo hold. In the overhead compartments. In someone’s pocket. The place it would be least effective for any or all of this would be in the toilet.

In any case, these cell phones and iPods and similar devices look like any other. It would take an expert who knows what he’s looking for to detect the possible use for terrorism, and I highly doubt that there was one on that flight. I mean, it’s not like there’s a “dial this to set off explosions” on their lists.

And how is that any different if the iPod is in the toilet than if it is in someone’s pocket?

If there was a genuine risk from “these cell phones and iPods and similar devices” that all “look like any other” every last one of them would be banned from planes. The only difference between that iPod and every other iPod on that plane (and it is a safe bet that there were several of them, at a minimum) is the relevant one had fallen into the toilet and was therefore less likely to be able to do anything whatsoever, including setting off imaginary bombs, than any or all of the others.

Another Ben Franklin quote:
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

But what is the value of tons of worthless baby-pacifier-style prevention which cures nothing?

I agree, though, with that statement. An ounce of prevention of the erosion of our essential liberties is worth many pounds of desperate, doomed efforts to get them back when the people who seek to destroy them — our own politicians, and their bootlickers — succeed.

First they took away the suspected terrorists’ rights,
But I was not a terrorist so I did not speak up.
Then they took away the suspected drug dealers’ rights,
But I was not a drug dealer so I did not speak up.
Then they took away the suspected dissidents’ rights,
But I was not a dissident so I did not speak up.
Then they took away my rights,
And there was nobody left who had the right to speak up.

(with apologies to the late Rev. Martin Niemoller)

This is a war these days too. Things have to be done to ensure our survival.

A war against “terror”? How can you go to war with an emotion?

A war against terrorism? How can you go to war against a tactic?

What are the victory conditions for this war? How will we know who has won? When will we know who has won?

What survival are we trying to ensure? Under what conditions?

Something to think about: the death toll of a 9/11-magnitude attack once a month would not equal the death toll of traffic accidents in the US during the same period. Why are we terrified of such an attack, but don’t shiver in fear when we get into our cars?

… but among many varied people doing many jobs, it is the politicians who lead the effort to save you.

The politicians are doing nothing but leading the effort to ensure their tenure in their jobs. It has become abundantly clear in the past five years that they do not care about the citizens, the country, or anything else except their own election or re-election (as appropriate). Not from any party. Not on any side. They aren’t saving anything but their paychecks. They are beating the drums of fear so that people like you cringe in terror of the boogeyman and willingly throw your freedom onto the bonfire to protect you for a few moments more against the Long Night.

… but we have to give up a little freedom so they can do their job. So we can win this war. Because the alternative is to lose the war eventually. You would not like the amount of lost freedom in that case, in so many ways.

So what is winning this “war”?

What is losing?

How do we tell the difference?

Personally, if I find myself living in a fascist police state, I’d count that as losing.

And a thought ….

Look at some of the things the British suspects were charged with: Possession of articles that could be used to prepare a terrorist act. They found hydrogen peroxide. They found electronic components. They found a book on improvised explosives. They found a map of Afghanistan. Guess what, if you search my place you’ll find all of those … and a cell phone … and an MP3 player … and data storage devices. With the possible exception of the map of Afghanistan (though I think there was a big foldout one in National Geographic a while ago) and the book on improvised explosives (available at your local bookstore) you probably have all of those in your house. I certainly have them all, including the book. Does that make me a terrorist?

Do I want to live in a country where merely having those items — the peroxide to sanitize reptile cages, the electronic components to fix things, the book for research for my writing, the map because I just collect (or at least accumulate) maps, the cell phone to call people with, the MP3 player to listen to music on, and at least as many discs, memory sticks, etc., as the average geek — is illegal? One where I could be accused of a crime I would never even contemplate just because of innocent items that I owned?

Destroying our freedom in order to save it … what an amazing concept. Big Mommy is your friend.

Not.

Wanderer says on August 28th, 2006 at 2:58 pm:
As for it being an ipod, you can never be sure. It looks like an ipod but that does not imply it is an ipod. It could have been an empty ipod case with something else in it.

So why is it so much more of a threat in a toilet than it is in someone’s pocket?

Amaranthar says on August 29th, 2006 at 12:33 am:
Wanderer, an iPod can be rigged to do what I said it could, and at the same time still function just like any other iPod. Like I said, it would take an expert who knew what to look for to recognize it. Just because you lack the immagination to figure it out, don’t assume everyone else lacks such basic immagination too. But I’m not going to spell it out here for obvious reasons.

What does it matter where it was found or why it was there? It was out of place, and raised alarms. I never claimed that it might have been placed there on purpose. Still, two Russion planes went down and it was determined that the explosions were triggered in the toilets. So something unusual found in a planes toilet is alarming, reguardless of what it is.

Yeah, you are right that the bombings in both England and Spain used cell phones as timing devices. But you’re leaving out an inportant fact in both cases. In the English bombing, one of the bags was left on a bus and exploded sometime later than the others. Did the timing alarm not go off, and was a call made to set off the explosion? And in Spain, the critical evidence was from another bag, this one didn’t go off at all. It was stored along with other unclaimed items for months before it rang, alerting the police to check it out. The wiring evidently wasn’t hooked up right to cause the explosion. This was months after the bombing. I don’t think there can be any other explanation than that someone placed a call to that cell phone in order to try to trigger the explosion that they knew didn’t go off in the original bombing.

According to your argmunets, someone leaving a bag behind in a public place should cause no alarms or reactions at all. Am I correct?

I get the distinct feeling that you won’t believe anything. You’re railing against me for seeing the boogeyman, yet look at yourself. You see the boogeyman in everything about this war on terror. But when one looks at the facts, we are being attacked by terrorists and people are dying.

The liquids/gel business isn’t about mixing things together during a flight. It’s about explosives already made being smuggled on board, and then rigged electonically to be exploded.

GregC: “Allowing the Constitution to be tossed in the trash can is far worse than losing “the war”…what war? It’s not a war is horrible disgrace of politics and big money. World War II was a real war…there was a clear enemy. This “war” is aimed at anyone with “brown” skin, who may resemble a “terrorist” or not be a pasty-white-amercian-wholesome-christian. It is simply ridiculous.”

And the terrorist attacks are carried out almost exclusively by people of middle eastern decent. Greg, com’on man. Facts are facts, don’t ignore them. And by the way, we “pasty-white-amercian-wholesome-christians” are the same ones that fought Hitler in WWII, and live and work side by side with “brown skinned” people of middle eastern decent, and who mourn all the people who died on 9-11 and elsewhere no matter what their color or religion or background. And we come in all colors and faiths and heritages ourselves.

Wanderer says on August 29th, 2006 at 4:34 am:
Wanderer, an iPod can be rigged to do what I said it could, and at the same time still function just like any other iPod.

Greg’s right. You really have to knock off the Kool-Aid. It’s turning your brain purple.

If any of the experts seriously believed that an iPod could be rigged to do all the highly improbable things you’re trying to persuade us it could do, iPods wouldn’t be allowed on planes in the first place. I mean, c’mon, they ban tweezers for the love of God! You believe the government to be all-wise. The TSA has banned anything potentially more dangerous than tweezers. Therefore, by your own logic, iPods are not as dangerous in the eyes of the government experts as tweezers are. So it would seem that the very government you worship has declared that you are, in fact, wrong.

I have, incidentally, an extremely active and flexible imagination, and I have been unable to devise a plausible scenario in which a plane could be brought down by the use of tweezers. I can’t even think of any option that would not, in this post-9/11 world, require a proctologist to retrieve the tweezers from whoever tried to use them for nefarious purposes.

Like I said, it would take an expert who knew what to look for to recognize it. Just because you lack the immagination to figure it out, don’t assume everyone else lacks such basic immagination too. But I’m not going to spell it out here for obvious reasons.

So why, then, is there no restriction on walking into a plane with an iPod?

Please, at least be internally consistant.

What does it matter where it was found or why it was there? It was out of place, and raised alarms. I never claimed that it might have been placed there on purpose.

Why? Simple: That iPod was no more of a threat in a toilet than it was on its owner’s belt, or in his pocket, or in his luggage. When he explained how it got there, that should have been the end of it.

Still, two Russion planes went down and it was determined that the explosions were triggered in the toilets. So something unusual found in a planes toilet is alarming, reguardless of what it is.

In Pravda is no izvestia, in Izvestia is no pravda. Though you’re probably too young to even get the reference. Yeah, Pravda (and those who picked up the story from them) ranted for a while about Chechen terrorists and half-kilo bricks of explosives being set off in the toilets. They should stick with reporting on the opening of new tractor factories. So far as I know, nothing has been officially determined about what caused the crashes. It does take a while, you know. The TU-154 went down during a violent thunderstorm, incidentally.

Now, think like a terrorist here for a minute. You are a suicide bomber. You are going to try to crash a plane in which you, personally, are flying. Now, which way do you want to go about it?

1) Leave your explosive unattended in a toilet, where anyone can find it, and possibly do something like, oh, chuck it out of the plane before it goes off. Or just flush it, so you do nothing more than blow out the drain valves from a tank full of, um, let’s not go there.

2) Hold it firmly against your choice of vital targets and trigger it manually, so you know exactly when and where it’s going off for best effect.

Timed or remotely detonated explosives are great for bombings when the bomber intends to survive. That’s why terrorist groups like the IRA love them so much. But if you’re on the freaking plane, you’re not going to survive. You knew that when you got on board. You made your videotape and wrote out your will last night. You kissed your mama goodbye. You’ve got your one-way ticket to paradise. So why in the name of all that’s holy would you choose to use a much less reliable way of setting off your bomb … one that might not bring down the plane, or might not do anything at all except get you arrested … when you could do it right, make sure it works, with less difficulty?

Russian airport security, by the way, is notoriously lax. If someone did in fact set off a bomb in a plane’s toilet, it’s highly unlikely they did it with a rigged iPod. For one thing, I can’t think of any explosive that is both strong enough to do the job in such a small quantity (especially if you want the thing to keep playing music) and stable enough to want to risk carrying around, let alone survive all the travel and handling involved in getting it on a plane. They’d have a much easier time just bringing along a supply of the plastic explosive of their choice stuffed into something else and setting that off anywhere they wanted to. Or, for that matter, just bribing some random underpaid ground crewman to give them access to the plane beforehand.

Yeah, you are right that the bombings in both England and Spain used cell phones as timing devices. But you’re leaving out an inportant fact in both cases. In the English bombing, one of the bags was left on a bus and exploded sometime later than the others. Did the timing alarm not go off, and was a call made to set off the explosion?

Maybe. Or maybe the alarm was just set wrong. Occam’s Razor for the win.

And in Spain, the critical evidence was from another bag, this one didn’t go off at all. It was stored along with other unclaimed items for months before it rang, alerting the police to check it out. The wiring evidently wasn’t hooked up right to cause the explosion. This was months after the bombing. I don’t think there can be any other explanation than that someone placed a call to that cell phone in order to try to trigger the explosion that they knew didn’t go off in the original bombing.

I think there most certainly can be another explanation: It’s called a wrong number.

If I was going to make such a call to blow up that bag, I’d do it right away, not wait months. I’d do it when the bag was still on the train, not when it had sat in unclaimed baggage for ages and was unlikely to do anything more impressive than blow up a baggage bin somewhere.

According to your argmunets, someone leaving a bag behind in a public place should cause no alarms or reactions at all. Am I correct?

Nope. But then again, given your apparent inability to use logic, reason, or common sense in reading my arguments, I don’t really expect you to understand.

For one thing, a person leaving a bag behind intends to be not there when that bag explodes. A person with one of your magical rigged iPods would be in the plane — remember, that toilet was checked earlier (they are) and had no iPod, so the owner had to be on the plane — and therefore, it would make no sense just to abandon the thing. Much more effective to set it off personally. Quit trying to set up that straw man, it keeps falling over.

Let’s look at it this way: You see an iPod on a plane. In which of the following places would you consider it — the exact same iPod — to be a threat worthy of the response that this incident had:

1. On a passenger’s belt.
2. In a passenger’s pocket.
3. On a passenger’s tray table.
4. On an empty seat next to a passenger.
5. On the floor in front of a seat.
6. In the aisle somewhere.
7. Outside the door of the lavatory.
8. In the toilet.

Picked one? Good. Now, please explain why that location is more menacing than the lower-numbered ones.

I get the distinct feeling that you won’t believe anything. You’re railing against me for seeing the boogeyman, yet look at yourself. You see the boogeyman in everything about this war on terror. But when one looks at the facts, we are being attacked by terrorists and people are dying.

No. I see the natural inclinations of rulers to expand their powers at the expense of the ruled. That’s human nature. It’s something every society throughout history has faced, and we are no exception. That’s why eternal vigilance really is the price of liberty.

And the “war on terror”? How can you declare war on an emotion? You know what the biggest source of terror is? Scare-mongers whipping up panic to sell newspapers, get votes, improve ratings, whatever their personal profit happens to be. fnord

We are being attacked by terrorists and people are dying. Um, right. Yeah, it’s happening every day. No, no, don’t try to tell me that only Big Mommy and our noble politicians have protected us and otherwise we’d all be dead. That’s like me saying that my lucky charm protects me from being trampled by purple elephants — I can prove it because I remain un-trampled and capable of writing this post.

We have been attacked by a lot of assorted evildoers in the history of this country. People died. Fortunately, prior to the past few decades, we were not a nation of wimps. We were not a nation of cowards. We were not a nation of bootlickers. And we most certainly were not a nation of people eager to cower behind the skirts of Big Mommy. Freedom meant something to them. It clearly does not mean anything to those who are not just drinking the Kool-Aid but slamming pitchers of the stuff.

The liquids/gel business isn’t about mixing things together during a flight. It’s about explosives already made being smuggled on board, and then rigged electonically to be exploded.

Check your scare stories, you’re getting it wrong. The whole scare was about the possibility of people mixing up explosives (TATP being the main candidate) on the plane from innocuous ingredients.

And the terrorist attacks are carried out almost exclusively by people of middle eastern decent. Greg, com’on man. Facts are facts, don’t ignore them.

[snark] Why not, you do? [/snark]

Terrorist attacks are carried out almost exclusively by people of Middle Eastern descent. Um, yeah, right. Like in Oklahoma City. Like in the Tokyo subways. Like in Omagh. Like in Atlanta. Like in all the places bombed by the Red Army Faction (and its kindred) and the ETA and the Armata Corsa and the IRA and the Chechens and … well, and I could keep listing them for a while, but I doubt if it would make a difference to you. Christians. Jews. Muslims. Sikhs. Hindus. Atheists. Weird do-it-yourself cultists. I can find you examples of terrorist attacks for each and every one of them.

I find it mind-boggling, in this day and age, that I am arguing with someone who — despite access to a worldwide information network — displays such profound and willful ignorance as you do. It truly makes me fear for the future of all I hold dear.

Amaranthar says on August 29th, 2006 at 11:53 am:
Jeezus! I give up. As time goes on, as we experiance more attacks and more people die, you guys keep blaming the boogeyman government.

Amaranthar says on August 29th, 2006 at 10:03 pm:

I’ll tell you this. I have to throw my hands in the air and surrender in this forum. You people can’t even understand a simple thing. If liquids are forbidden on planes, and someone is then found with it, it’s a big alarm. That terrorist, if he isn’t successful in hiding the liquid/gel that’s forbidden, all of a sudden is suspect. On the other hand, if there’s no restrictions on these things, he’s free to proceed to try to blow the plane out of the air.

Why is this so freakin’ hard to understand? Like I said, I give up. You people responding this way are either way too slow upstairs or you just simply will not accept even reasonable explantions in your fervor to be anti authority.

Wanderer says on August 30th, 2006 at 1:39 am:
For a guy who supposedly gave up, you’re awfully wordy.

I’ll tell you this. I have to throw my hands in the air and surrender in this forum. You people can’t even understand a simple thing.

I’m sorry, but you are the one who is showing absolutely no signs of understanding. Several of us have explained, at great length, exactly how your position is logically and realistically indefensible. We can tell when we’ve won because you shift topics. For instance, you’ve gone from trying to prove that an iPod can be a weapon of mass destruction to the following semi-coherent (and I’m being generous in granting that “semi”) paragraph:

If liquids are forbidden on planes, and someone is then found with it, it’s a big alarm. That terrorist, if he isn’t successful in hiding the liquid/gel that’s forbidden, all of a sudden is suspect. On the other hand, if there’s no restrictions on these things, he’s free to proceed to try to blow the plane out of the air.

Okay, now just what exactly does this have to do with the reason an iPod that fell into a toilet is somehow more dangerous than exactly the same iPod where it was before its owner had that unfortunate mishap, namely clipped to his belt?

You have clearly given up trying to refute our arguments, possibly because you have neither facts nor evidence nor logic on your side. Instead you’re ranting about … um, I’m not really sure. You seem to be saying that if someone smuggles a forbidden liquid onto a plane there is, or should be, a security alert, but if liquids are not forbidden, then they’ll be blowing up planes left and right.

Assuming I have successfully winkled an actual position out of that disorganized mess, I’ll respond to what I think you’re trying to say there:

Um, yes, having a prohibited object on a plane will definitely get the attention of the people whose job it is to keep those objects off the plane. In other alarming news, driving 90 miles an hour down the highway will get the attention of the cops, and there are even reports that stuffing DVDs under your coat will attract a certain amount of interest from store security. Thank you for the information, Captain Obvious.

Now, what this has to do with iPods stuck in toilets is totally eluding me.

Now, as to the proposition that if there are no restrictions on carrying liquids onto planes, then our hypothetical terrorists will be free to blow them up:

First of all, there’s the matter of liquids in general being rather inconvenient and impractical explosives. Yes, there are some. Good ol’ nitroglycerine comes to mind. But they’re neither convenient nor practical, nor something that the average terrorist would want to be carrying around. (do you still get the free ticket to paradise if you get blown up when your car hits a pothole on the way to the airport?)

Second, there have been no exciting new developments in such explosives in the past month, or year, or five years. Nitroglycerine, as an example, was discovered in the 1800’s. So was TATP, for that matter, but it has to be precipitated and dried to make a really effective explosive. If this threat from bottles of Gator-Aid and the like really existed, it has existed for a very long time. Only in the run-up to a critical election has it suddenly become a matter of concern for those involved in spreading terror — by whom I refer to politicians who see political advantage in it. Even assuming that nobody considered the possibility of terrorists blowing up a plane prior to 9/11, that’s still almost five years that the government’s top experts have had to think of all the ways it could be done. It is highly unlikely that they would have missed something so obvious.

So, we’re left with the following possibilities:

1. The government experts are in fact morons, and never thought of this possibility.
2. They thought of it, then dismissed it as not a plausible threat.

In the case of option 1, we’re screwed anyway; a supposed who couldn’t think of something supposedly so purportedly simple that a bunch of wanna-bes in England thought they could carry it out is going to have difficulty finding his ass with both hands and a map.

In the case of option 2, we have to consider why a possibility long ago dismissed by the experts is suddenly being given attention by the government and certain mouthpiece news organizations. When I see a government trying to get voters all riled up, and when I see an upcoming election which is critical to the ruling party, I tend to suspect a certain connection.

What do you find so complicated about that? Everyone wants to keep their job. I’m sure you want to keep your job, right? I certainly want to keep my business. Why do you find it so hard to believe that politicians would do everything they could to get re-elected?

Incidentally, there are many excellent explosives available in solid form. Far more than there are liquids. What do you suppose is keeping people from walking onto planes with all manner of them? Think about that for a while. Scared yet? You should be. I apparently know a significant amount more about both explosives and airport security than you do, and I know the answer to that question … and I also know several ways of getting around it. Since I do not, in fact, believe the experts are morons, I have to assume that they’re as aware of those methods as I am. What I, a random blog wanderer, can think of, I’m sure Al Quaida can think of, so I’m sure they, too, are equally aware of those methods. No liquids are required. Nor iPods. And the results would be quite spectacular. Given the lack of planes raining out of the sky, one should, I think, be looking elsewhere for the reason it’s not happening. That reason is certainly not a ban on tweezers or Gatorade.

Something else to think about: Someone could have flown a couple of planes into the Twin Towers, or anywhere else they wanted, for a very long time. Why did they decide to do it five years ago, and not long before? Look at the reasons for that — and don’t ask me what they are, I’m a website designer, not an intelligence analyst — and you might get some idea why they haven’t done it since. I guarantee you, it’s not because of a ban on tweezers.

Why is this so freakin’ hard to understand?

Because you have presented no facts. Because you have argued from authority without citing that authority. Because you have made unfounded conjectures and treated them as proven. Because you have squirmed out of the way every time one of your statements is taken apart. Because you wiggle like a worm to avoid having to respond to the point-by-point posts people have made. Because you have not, in fact, really presented any case beyond “I know I’m right.”

Like I said, I give up. You people responding this way are either way too slow upstairs or you just simply will not accept even reasonable explantions in your fervor to be anti authority.

Give me a reasonable explanation and I’ll consider accepting it. I haven’t seen one yet.

So far, your explanations seem to be founded more on Kool-Aid chugging than on reason, logic, and facts.

For example, in the matter of the Madrid bombings, “I don’t think there can be any other explanation than that someone placed a call to that cell phone in order to try to trigger the explosion that they knew didn’t go off in the original bombing.” The “other explanation” you couldn’t think of was a wrong number which reached the relevant cell phone. Instead of considering the everyday, plausible explanation, you went straight to the tinfoil hat department and decided that the only possible explanation is a months-belated attempt at blowing up the unclaimed baggage bin, for some incomprehensible reason, and a simple wrong number doesn’t even enter into it.

Jeezus! I give up. As time goes on, as we experiance more attacks and more people die, you guys keep blaming the boogeyman government.

Could you explain to me, if you would, exactly how many of those attacks have occurred in the United States, and how many people have died? From your rhetoric, you seem to think that they’re happening on a daily basis. Could I have some numbers here? You said “…as we experience more attacks…” not “…if we someday experience more attacks…” By your words, they are occurring. So which ones have I missed?

Now what, exactly, am I blaming the government for? For wasting taxpayers’ money on useless “pacifiers” instead of spending it where it will be actually effective? For allocation of “incident response” grants based, not on risks or threats, but on the political strengths of various members of Congress? For inducing terror in members of the public in order to boost a party’s support prior to a critical election, at the expense of national security? Yes, damn straight I’m blaming them for that. But that, my friend, is the part that you are refusing to see.

You want Big Mommy to protect you. You feel loyal to Big Mommy and thankful for that protection. You are a true victim of terrorism: You live in terror, so much terror that you will gladly throw away the very principles the United States was founded on if Big Mommy tells you that is what you have to do to get that protection. For you, life is so dear, and peace so sweet, that you will willingly purchase it at the price of chains and slavery.

I renounce victimhood.

I refuse to live in terror.

And I will not be silent.