Paul Baechler wrote:

They don't demonstrate that there's no interest in using aircraft;
general aviation was non-existent in Lebanon in 1981, and is for all
practical purposes non-existent in Saudi Arabia. You can't reasonably
argue that failure to use a non-obtainable weapon is evidence that
there's no interest in using it.

I'm not trying to make the above argument. Where and why did
you get the impression I had?

The point is, this is a group which has demonstrated an interest
in using car and truck bombs.

So if the real issue is security, why the focus on GA, a minor
part of the threat picture? Why not impose restrictions on
all vehicles, ground and air, commensurate with the demonstrated
and potential threat?

OTOH, if the real issue is political: creating an appearance
that action has been taken, while focusing on actions which
impact only a numerically small group of people, rather than
the large numbers of people who make daily use of cars and
trucks, focus on GA makes sense (from the viewpoint of strictly
the most politically beneficial action)

Cheers,
Sydney