More Anti GA hysteria

Bob Noel wrote:
Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.

In article , "Brien K. Meehan"
wrote:

Other than being spectacular, the use of a small
aircraft would be stupid.

I agree, but "spectacular" is the main criterion for terrorist actions.

That depends on the terrorist's objective.

It is my understanding that some organizations are more interested
in spectacular than actual damage. However, other organizations want
to inflict damage. Do you have information to the contrary?

Pick a mission/objective that you think
a small aircraft could accomplish, and I'll find a cheaper, faster,
easier way to accomplish the same objective without using a small
aircraft, with the added bonus that the terrorist would likely
survive
to attempt more evil.

Efficiency and effectiveness (in terms of numbers of casualties) aren't
usually terrorist objectives, especially at the expense of being
spectacular. Surviving the attack is seen as a negative outcome.


based on what information?

btw - using a small aircraft isn't even particularly spectacular.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.