[QUOTE=CessnaJock;8594956] And that would probably bring down the economy.[QUOTE]

The terrorsits depend on the economy. Assuming a terrorist group based in SW Asia over an oil resource. USA componies like ExonnMobil buy the oil, pay the terrorists, and sell to USA citizens. The terrorist group uses the money to buy weapons to attack the USA. The USA suffers an Uber-Deppresion. The world cascades into a large deppresion. ExonnMobil stops paying terrorists money to buy oil. Terrorists don't have money to attack USA anymore. USA stops being attacked, it's that simple!

Now why don't we cut out the middlemen--terrorists--and use the resources of the USA to attack ourseleves to stop ourselves from being attacked by terrorist groups. All we need is a certain--stupid--Texan to pay some people to attack the USA, possibly people his family and friends had contacs with before his fathers presidency.

It could never happen!




Note: I am not writing that the Bush Admin helped cause the 9/11 attacks--I feel that the people that write those conspiricies need to wake up to reality--although from this line of reasoning the possiblity seems too real.

Not always and not even generally -- at least not by measure of who they actually intend to kill and do kill.

Any other comic book worthy "worst (sic) case scenario"? In that case, which one is the actual "worst case scenario"?

The worst case scenerio to me would be an Earth Abides scenerio where a virus that kills nearly all of humanity is created. In addition to the book scenerio the terrorists would be based on the moon and after people suffer and grive, nuke the world into submission and eventually the terrorists on the moon would come down upon their holy site--Mecca, Jerusalem, Vatican--and then live life. If they were of a fundementalist and misogonystic kult they would forget to have women in their kult and quickly die out. The last three people in the kult will kill each other over a small squabble of docterine of the kult and the last person will commit suicide because he murdered the other two people. Maybe I should write a book...

1 - Not necessarily. I have flown a few ILSs that the GS starting acting erratic but yet no flag so I abandoned the approach. Once in IMC this happened and I came back around for a LOC only. Tower had an alarm in the tower cab after I said something.
HSA?? What’s that?

2- Yeah, we call that a visual approach.

3 - Assuming another approach is available and the equipment isn't co-located in the same facility.

4 - GCA? I assume you mean ASR or PAR. If you are approved for that.

5 - If its the back course is to the same runway you cant do it. Remember an ILS is also comprised of a LOC signal. No signal for either GS or LOC if the equipment is overheated. Some airports only have one shack for several runways. AFW uses the same freq & equipment for the ILS for opposing approaches.

6 - If you have the gas.

7 - Most airports don't have a military airfield nearby

8 - Not any more zany that your ideas.
I have also worked for an airline that could not use a certain airport for a couple of days because the ILS shack was struck by lighting.

No, the intention is to destroy American influence in the world - 9/11 would have had similar results if 1 person or 1 million had died

As for destroying American influence in the world, the "intelligent" Dick Cheney and his 4 horsemen seem to be achieving that very well without the jihadists having to do very much

There's a lot of truth to what you're saying.

And there's a lot of truth to what people say about us being over there for oil. But I also note that those people complaining about us being over there for oil are still consumers. When they sign up to live the Amish lifestyle then I can listen to their argument with more enthusiasm.

Because non-commercial gasoline is only a small part of oil consumption.

Why not?

I'm truly interested in your thought process on this, BTW, not being a smartass per usual.

One word-

Beslan.

One needs to understand the difference between the strategic goals and tactical goals of such an organization.

The tactical goals may fail yet still be a strategic success. And vice versa.

Also remember the goal of any war isn't to kill each and every member of the opposing side. It's to break their will and ability to fight. You can break a country long before you can exterminate every last occupant of it. The same goes with an organization or movement or religion, etc, ad nauseum. So killings true purpose must ultimately be measured against that yardstick - how much does that attack do damage to their ability/will to fight?

I don't believe that to be the case; but it's neither my or your thought process nor being that which you mention which is truly of interest here.

The facts are what they are: most "jihadists" are not primarily or even secondarily interested in attacking Americans or attacking Americans in America. Most such outfits mentioned as "jihadists" by Bushists have much more narrow and geographically-specific political objectives than Al-Qaeda. (Some "jihadist" terrorist organizations are even targetted by Al-Qaeda or are otherwise in conflict with them yet get lumped into the same category.) To lump a selective list of extremist outfits into one bucket on the basis of religion (read: "jihadists") and globalize the issue -- even as most such outfits have no global objectives -- is a useful fiction for certain parties but a dangerous fiction if one cares mostly about US national security interests and a global reduction in terrorist attacks rather than some other more narrow interests.

If you cannot understand the above, then I cannot help you.

You cannot speak about Jihadists' generally, but OBL made numerous public statements on his web site and in his videos stating his objective as forcing the USA to pull it's forces out of Saudi Arabia, because he felt their presence was defiling the holy places. Bush finally caved into his demands in 2002, and since then, OBL has launched no furhter attacks against the USA.

I agree. Unfortunately, that's not the same as "impossible." There is enough weapons-grade fissile material missing from the FUSSR to irradiate the United States, and enough nuclear engineering expertise in Pakistan to make it happen.

This is why I think the U.S. forces deployed in the middle east would better serve our interests if they were redeployed to guard our ports and infrastructure.

Be very afraid.

I agree with everything except for the oil part. I say if we're over there for the oil, where the hell is it? If we were getting oil out of the deal, I don't think we'd still be paying nearly $3 a gallon for gass and heating bills wouldn't be high either. Hell, even electric's up because of it (even though my power company primarily uses coal ).

Plastics are a large part of where oil is used too. I don't think most people realize most plastic comes from petrochemicals.

No, I understand the above and actually (...God and Dovster forgive me for actually saying this...please.....) agree with it.

Most jihadists do have a narrow scope of interest, particularly at first. Most aren't interested in the USA (beyond a general hatred) as a tactical or strategic target unless it coincides with their objectives.

But I was interested why you said that terrorist organizations do not want to be acknowledged for many of their attacks, when it appears self-evident to me that they very much do.

Since I stopped showering I have not been cold.

It doesn't matter that it's summer and it doesn't get cold. It was entirely a result of stopping showering.



OBL and company haven't been able to pull of an attack. They're on the run and on defense. But it doesn't seem to have stopped some of their ideologues from trying to attack the US and US interests.

And what does OBL and company want from the USA?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...845725,00.html