The rules on carrying liquids onto planes have been relaxed today - you are now allowed 100ml per container up to 1l.
Why is this amount of fluid not a danger to travellers today, if it was yesterday? Have they "uninvented" the explosives they were scared about? Was it a mistake to ban small quantities of liquids in the first place? Or was it all just an exercise to keep us scared and backing the "War on Terror" - especially in light of tomorrow's US elections?
2006-11-05 22:21:08 · 14 answers · asked by gvih2g2 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The initial ban was an overreaction to a terrorist threat from the UK. When they sobered up they realized that a dangerous amount of liquid that size could not be brought into a plane.
Always the negative attitude, eh?
2006-11-05 22:30:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You don't say how old the puppy is, but young ones need to sleep a lot. I do hope that all the walking around you were doing was in your home. No puppy should have feet on the ground away from your clean environment (or a puppy class enclosure) until he is fully vaccinated at 14 to 15 weeks. I hope you are measuring his daily food intake and splitting it between meals according to his age (4 meals per day up to about ten weeks old, then 3/day until adolescence). Did he go to your vet yesterday? A vaccination can make them sleep most of the next day. Any new dog should be examined by your vet within 48 hours of acquiring to start a record and to check for the most common diseases.
2016-05-22 03:20:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the liquid. Also the person who is carrying it. This knee jerk reaction was quickly brought in (and rightly so) after an attempt to hijack planes by terrorists was discovered and foiled earlier this year.
Personally, unless it was medication why would anyone need to have liquid? The planes supply this as part of the flight package. Also, surely women can go without their handbags for a few hours during flight... I would rather have this than worry about someone having something dangerous on board...
Jemma
2006-11-05 22:31:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is because that is what was used in the resent attacks and they were fearful of simular ones close the the time again. it is difficult to ban eveything you think could be dangerous as soon you would not be able to take anything on as handlugae at all. i mean they would even have to take belts from you and chains incase you tryed to strangle anyone and i'm sure noone would like to go on plane journeys complely naked in teh name of safety? there is an element in risk on everything you do. the anount of risk determins youyr actions and drawbacks of protection can also put some people off. everyone wants to be able to taske their bottle of water on just in case......
2006-11-05 22:26:12 · answer #4 · answered by louise h 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone really wants to smuggle something dangerous on a plane, they will find a way.
I refuse to be scared of things I personally can't control.
And for the record, all politicians, no matter what party, know exactly how to spin the media to their benefit.
2006-11-05 22:26:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Small quantities are allowed only and you have to declare them before you go through. Its not an exercise to keep us scared, its an exercise to keep us safe.
2006-11-05 22:29:21 · answer #6 · answered by Annie M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.. the whole idea was gay to begin with ... a shampoo bottle filled with nitroglycerin would vaporize a 20ft section of a plane and blow it in half with a simple detonator in the cap ... no mixing required and all that stupid "mission impossible" bullcrap they laid on us ... if there were terrorists running around out to get us they would simply bust into an airport terminal with legally bought semiauto assault rifles and take over the whole dam terminal and fly out .. of course they would need govt cooperation like in 911 so they could fly unintercepted for a couple of hours to their targets ...
2006-11-05 22:52:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
For no rhyme, or reason. This is the same way salt was bad for you in the past, but it is ok now. The so called gurus of disseminating info say what their whims tell them to say and do.
2006-11-06 00:02:40 · answer #8 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who knows, someone probably came up with the whole thing just to get their name out there, then they came to their senses and realized it was rediculous.
Pretty soon we'll be checking all of our clothing and flying naked, following a full cavity search of course...
2006-11-05 22:32:38 · answer #9 · answered by bandit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
small liquid does not blow up planes terrorist do, and at the present time terrorist are Islamic extremist, so lets stop being so damn politically correct and start a little profiling.
2006-11-05 22:25:36 · answer #10 · answered by 007 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋