Alright mister, it's game on now.......



......as soon as I can think of something witty to say.

At the risk of being too political and bustin' an Omni-cap in you -

What imperialist agenda did Afghanistan, Somalia and the Sudan have? What's their relation to Israel? Because they've been there fighting for some time now.....

I think excuses are all that's needed, myself. And their avowed things the US can do to "make it all stop" doesn't stop at leaving Saudi Arabia (done), leave Iraq (not yet) and stop supporting Israel (not ever, probably). The list of what we need to do it much, much larger.

The list is rather finite, both in scope and depth. Admitting that there'd be a huge drop in the number of persons engaged in "global terrorism" if political adjustments of a sort were made is politically inconvenient quite often; it doesn't change the fact that it would be effective as it has proven to be in a great number of contexts. Eliminate entirely? Terrorism is a tactic, so waiting for it to disappear entirely is like waiting to see a fairy godmother wave a wand to make a pumpkin into a carriage.

I agree that it's much larger. Personally, I think Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban WERE harboring Osama. As he claimed responsibility, we couldn't just let that go. Sudan shouldn't just be our problem, and Somalia I really don't think we needed to be involved there as it's still a mess there too.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is centuries old and that's going to take a long time to resolve, if it ever is. Honestly, I think we should largely butt out of a lot of world politics and spend our money at home. The mess we have right now with wars and so on is starting to cause an economic downturn. And maybe if we start focusing more on things at home, things will start to settle down elsewhere.

I don't think America's imperialist, but I do think it's a bit too nosy. And that nosiness with even good intentions can and has gotten us into trouble.

I don't believe terrorists will settle for a theoretical possibility. They not only want to make absolutely sure that their acts of destruction are successfully carried out, but they also want the terror that comes from the use of explosives. They want the visibility that comes from a punch to the nose as opposed to the anonymity that comes from poisoning a drink. Being able to take credit is just as important as the deed itself. Otherwise, a government investigation could easily conclude that an airplane was downed due to a mechanical/electrical failure (and, if you really want to get carried away with this and jump into the conspiratorial aspects: the government could use this to mask terrorism by blaming it on mechanical/electrical failure). Either way, terrorists want us to know that they did this. A bomb does that. A gun pointed in someone's face does that. A plane flown deliberately into a building does that. A mysterious crash does not.

Not always.

Bart's spot on. Part of the goal of the terrorist is to have a very high visibility event so as to instill fear in the American public as it goes about its normal life. Best way to do that is a large, loud, visible event. An EMI-based event won't cut it, IMHO.

Point of order, but bin Laden initially and for some time afterwards denied any responsibility for 9/11.

Bart, I understand what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree. The Manila plot was intended to blow up a dozen airliners at once, and over deep water so that the forensic evidence would be inaccessible. You think the disappearance of two or three thousand people over the Pacific Ocean wouldn't inflict terror on the U.S.?

The jihadists' intent is to kill Americans.

Jee, I know a much simpler method to interrupt the ILS signal. Turn off the air conditioner in the ILS shack. Componets overheat and poof...no workey.

Reasons Why That Wouldn't Work.

1. The red ILS "INOP" flag on the pilot's Glide Slope or HSA would pop out and
2. The pilot would land by other means
3. Possibly on another runway at the same facility
4. Or by GCA on the same runway
5. Or maybe shoot a localizer back course
6. Or in another city
7. Or at a nearby AFB or NAS or MCAS
8. So don't get downright zany

THere's actually a much easier way that's ground based.... and easily done with consumer stuff that can be purchased off-the-shelf. $50 worth of TV accessory stuff from Radio Shack....

Some people in this thread are commenting on how terrorists appear to be stupid. Most people in the world are stupid in that they are not capable of creating a major attack on a superpower. Yet among all the stupid people there needs only to be one smart person to get the job done. For example, the American Revolution was created by some 100 men in Philidelphia to rid their colonies of the British, 100 people could not fight an empire, to fight an empire there must be many more people to achieve a critical mass to fight. It is very likely that there is at least one smart person that has the power to control terrorists. Thomas Jefferson is an example of a smart person in control of a country, same with Dick Cheny in the current USA.

I may not enjoy what the terrorists do, yet, I know that I have some respect--the same respect I have for the Bush Administration for running such a propaganda campaign to get the USA into Iraq--for a group of people (or person) that can mastermind such a sucsessful attack on the USA.

To respond to Superguy's idea of "I don't think America's imperialist, but I do think it's a bit too nosy. And that nosiness with even good intentions can and has gotten us into trouble."
The USA has done many "bad" things with good intentions such as torture. The USA has also done some "bad" things with "bad" intentions such as getting into Iraq for oil. Even with all the "bad" the USA has done I would not choose to live anywhere else in the world.

To respond to CessnaJock's idea of "The jihadists' intent is to kill Americans." I agree with Bart.
The whole point of terrorism is to incite terror within a group of people. I agree with your idea of "the jihadists' intent is to kill Americans" yet this is not the whole intent. The idea of the terrorists is to make people around the world fear them. In reality the 3,000 people that died in the 9/11 attacks are not that many people, the fear that the murder caused upon the other 300million people in the USA is the true goal.

If I assume my own definition of terrorism as correct an attack on airplanes will not be the most horrific possiblility of a terrorist attack. An attack on a school would be the most horrific. To provide an example I will use an unnamed school in Bellevue, Wa where I am familiar with the campus. The terrorist would drive into the school at 11:30 during a rainy winter day. The terrorist would wear a suicide bomber belt under his coat and claim he needs to give a lunch to his child. The terrorist would walk into the middle of the lunchroom and blow himself up, killing at least 200 children. All of this is possible with no security and minimal planning. It would not be very hard to plan this attack and repeat it in 100 schools at the same time. That attack would truly be the worst-case terrorist scenerio of all.

With all due respect - and as I said above - having a few thousand people disappear in flight without a sound would stop people from flying entirely. And that would probably bring down the economy.

With all due respect, the consequences of attacking a few schools would pale in comparison to the fallout from a nuclear attack upwind from a large population center. Even causing a nuclear power plant to get out of control would create a sterile zone that no one could enter for thousands of years. The death of a thousand school kids would be "child's play" in comparison.

When I was considering a worst case scenerio I was thinking about a very easy scenerio. Of course a nuke or chemical bomb in NYC would do more damage than killing thousands of children all across the nation at the same time but I was thinking of a feasable situation. Getting a nuke to blow up WAS, NYC, and LAX is of course worse than small bombs over schools but the nuke would be near impossible.

Of course there are ways to top even bombing just the US. Why don't they bomb everywhere except Mecca and Jerusalem (assuming they are Muslim terrorists). Or everywhere except the Vatican and Jerusalem (if Christian). Or even everywhere except Israel (if Jewish). Of course there are far worse situations than killing of some children though in ease of an attack I don't know. (not to give any terrorist group an idea)

Any group that could create such a terrible attack has my respect, an evil and deadly respect, yet respect all the way.