True, but as long as we're addicted to oil (and we are) we will be in the ME in some form or fashion.

And that is also why we're not in, say, the Sudan. Nothing strategic to our nation there. Just a routine genocide.

Absolutely correct. Most people also don't realize that most gas consumption isn't by SUVs but by commercial traffic (semis, etc.).

Except that most of that thread thoroughly debunked the nonsense that consumer personal electronic devices pose any risk whatsoever to aircraft control and navigation systems.

You are apparently then interested in something that I did not say.

What I said through my response therein was essentially the following: not all terrorists want to be acknowledged for all of their attacks.

Sometimes terrorists don't even want to be acknowledged for any of their attacks; sometimes terrorists don't want to be acknowledgd for some of their attacks but want to be acknowledged for other attacks. And that's not even the all of it. There have also been terrorist attacks that have gone publicly unclaimed until intelligence or law enforcement resources ascribed the attack to an individual terrorist or terrorist organization. There have even been terrorist attacks where no party claimed responsibility and where no party was blamed for the attack.

By the way, Sudan does have oil.

Indeed, just as Chevron. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/10.htm

"Cell phones as safety hazard" and "personal electronic devices are a safety hazard" comes close to the ridiculous concept that "CD players are a safety hazard" when a few dozen people are using them in-flight and the flight continues just fine.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=81

Ok, got it. Now my question is : why?

http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/su/p0005.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/w...aairaqioil.htm

Quick aside -

How 'bout them Sox?

Nothing to be confused about:

In other words, terrorists do not always want [the general public] to know who were the perpetrators that did the attack.

Going down tonight buddy

But why, do you think? Wouldn't that defeat their purpose, if we assume the job of terrorists is to create terror (how's that for a tautology)? How can one create terror if the attack isn't known?

Then it's not terrorism. It may be sabotage, arson, murder or some other crime; but without anyone to claim credit or push some agenda in connection with the act, it's not terrorism.

And those that overestimate the level of threat are doomed to paranoia.

Where are the attacks? There are 10's - no 100's - of thousands of sites such as bridges, rail lines, tunnels, places where people gather by the thousands, etc. etc. etc. Far too many for us to protect. No attacks.

I am far from certain that there are "many out there." We will be attacked again, I do believe, and successfully. One simply cannot make any nation - no matter how "free" or how much under the thumb of a police state free from fanatics intent on destruction.

As you point out, it was 19 guys with a plan and some box cutters who made a big strike. What is the exact evidence that there are more out there as smart or smarter?

IMO, we need to do our best without acting like cowards and old ladies. Then live free or die. (And my guess is that there will be hundreds of millions in the "live free" category and relatively few in the "die" category as time goes on.

If you think about it (well enough), you can figure out why too. There are several reasons why. I'm not here to contribute to the writing of another book on terrorism or this will get sent to OMNI, so you'll have to do the research on your own. It's really not that difficult to figure out why if you give it some thought and genuine effort.

Tautologies (or their equivalent including in definitions or through synonyms in definitions) along with overly broad assumptions lead to mistakes such as that evident in the premise of your question above.

What I mentioned wouldn't necessarily defeat the purpose of terrorists, particularly as the purpose of terrorists is not always or necessarily "to create terror"; that's often it but sometimes it's just a coincidental indicator of terrorism. The purpose of terrorism is the accomplishment of the political objective itself through actual or threatened violence directed against civilians or civilian facilities; the creation of terror is a means to that purpose but not necessary for that purpose.

Wrong, what I said is still terrorism.

Terrorism committed to point the finger at someone else is one of many such examples.

Terrorism committed to accomplish political objectives doesn't always require finger pointing or claiming responsibility either. Another such example.

Do you mean to tell me you're rooting for the TRIBE?

Oh the humanity.......