"Completely infeasible terrorist plan" is exactly the wrong argument to make. (a) you don't actually know it was infeasible, which costs you credibility right out of the gate, and (b) you're tacitly accepting that every "feasible" terrorist plan deserves explicit countermeasures.
Another reason why this discussing annoys me; people always insist on having it on the TSA's terms. Why? They'll win this argument every time. They have more facts and their facts are scarier than yours.
Infeasible, as in their explosives would not have detonated. Don't lecture me about "credibility", educate yourself about the facts of the case.
But yes, I'm sure the TSA and its supporters can devise ever-so-many facts about how we have to be protected from water-bottle bombs that fortunately don't require any more special disposal than tossing in a garbage can.
No. Not going to educate myself about the facts of the case. Why? Because that would be retarded. There are millions of ways for terrorists to bring down a plane, and arguing about this specific one way is exactly what people like the TSA want you to do.
But I'm glad you've convinced yourself that they're wrong about this one way. I'm a convicted TSA skeptic, and you haven't even convinced me, but I'm sure it's fun to be right.
"Not going to educate myself about the facts of the case. Why? Because that would be retarded."
Then don't bleat about what I do and do not know or ramble on about "credibility".
"I'm a convicted TSA skeptic, and you haven't even convinced me"
Yes, you've shown your deep skepticism here, but what made you think I was trying to convince you of anything? I merely pointed out something perfectly true, and you appointed yourself my terribly lazy fact-checker and rhetoric editor.
I'm not going to try to "convince" someone who makes false statements or implications any more than I'm going to have a meeting of the minds with the guy quoting Republican talking points on torture.
Incidentally, what is the right argument to make in your mind? You say it's "retarded" to talk facts and that you're annoyed that anyone's even talking about this issue in the first place, so what's the tptacek-approved rhetoric, here?
That the explicit goal of terrorism is to coerce us into punishing ourselves with inane security measures, which allows 1-2 people to wreak billions of dollars of damage on society? That it doesn't matter if there's some combination of innocuous-looking liquids that will detonate an airliner?
Yes, there's an argument that changes minds by the millions. All the people who are willing to do damn near anything in the name of "security", because "you can't be too safe", will understand that it doesn't really matter whether a danger exists.
Apparently (from upthread), most Americans would be fine with overt strip searches at the airport, because they have nothing to hide and they'd rather be safe. So if you're conceding this argument, I have a hard time seeing where your argument about the chemistry of specific liquid explosives will get you.
Look, all I'm saying is that the both the (lame) comic and the discussion here are missing the point of the actual problem. It's not that 6 ounces of clear fluids could or couldn't be more dangerous than batteries. It's the orgnanizational dynamics that allow debates like this to shape policy.
Seriously, tell me you honestly believe that a highly publicized argument about the safety of laptop batteries on airplanes wouldn't simply get laptop batteries banned at this point.
That would require me to have been actually arguing that argument.
People want security. They will not abandon the desire for security, they will not recontextualize the role of security in their society to your liking. Your only hope is choke down the overweening mania of the security apparatus during periods the public isn't actively panicking.
You point out where security is dumb, inconvenient, and - here's the big point - not making them safer. You prod them out of the cognitive dissonance that keeps them accepting what they already suspect are useless security measures because some authority told them to. You have a hard road ahead of you, but then life is pain.
Another reason why this discussing annoys me; people always insist on having it on the TSA's terms. Why? They'll win this argument every time. They have more facts and their facts are scarier than yours.