Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

In article ,
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

My point was they are further demonstration of the interest
and capability these scum-balls have in using ground vehicles
to attack US interests and kill US citizens; further evidence
that the focus upon planes, and GA planes especially, as
security threats, is misguided.

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. And the question is really the focus on
GA planes; airliners were used in 20% of the attacks attributed to
al-Qaeda.

--
Paul Baechler

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

In article ,
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

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?

It's the argument you're effectively making when you drag the foreign
bombings in.

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

It's a group which has demonstrated a willingness to use truck bombs
when aircraft aren't available. If you limit your argument to al-Qaida
attacks within the US they used commercial airliners (i.e., airplanes)
50% of the time (assuming both WTC attacks were made by al-Qaida).

--
Paul Baechler

"Paul Baechler" wrote in message
news
It's a group which has demonstrated a willingness to use truck bombs
when aircraft aren't available. If you limit your argument to al-Qaida
attacks within the US they used commercial airliners (i.e., airplanes)
50% of the time (assuming both WTC attacks were made by al-Qaida).

Even using your own screwed up logic, 50% of the attacks in the US were done
using something OTHER than airplanes. Seems to me, by your own line of
reasoning, trucks should be subject to at least as much restrictions as
airplanes.