Get a life.
Truck bomb. It's been done before. Examples include the suicide bomb attack against the US Marines in Beirut, and the attack against the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
There seems to be an option that you missed: seeing if there are indicators that terrorists have an interest in striking.
Major terrorist attack is ‘inevitable’ as Isis fighters return, say EU officials
EU’s 28 governments are said to be struggling to respond to threat of Islamist fighters coming back from Iraq and Syria
ETA, IRA, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, all were small potatoes compared to the potential of the Islamists.
But how much damage can one person do? If he's successful he'll maybe kill ten people.
An individual terrorist could easily kill hundreds of people, and wound thousands.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't pass through airport security, they had someone on the inside who let them through a door.
That isn't true. Now go away, troll.
It tells us that any level of airport security is enough to make an attack using an aeroplane not the most attractive option for terrorists.
That obviously is not true since the 9/11 hijackers had to pass through airport security.
Given the fact that security at airports is not very good and nothing really bad has happened in the last decade, what does this tell us about the real terrorist threat level in Europe?
That much of Europe has probably been almost lulled into the level of complacency that will make a truly horrifying attack possible?
In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.
No, that just shows that the Intent, Capability, and Opportunity haven't yet aligned to result in an incident or attack... that you know of. Absence of an attack isn't the same as absence of a threat. And you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't terrorists in Germany, or flying through it, that wouldn't attack the airport, planes, or other places in Germany specifically or Europe in general.
Germany Sends 240 Cops to Arrest Nine ISIS Suspects in Cologne - November 12th 2014
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
What is the form of the bias that you think exists, and how do you think that it alters things? Does that mean Iraq didn't invade Iran or Kuwait? Or did anything else not happen?
11.3% is certainly a meaningful number, and far removed from the practical nonexistence that was being posited.
That number doesn't tell everything however. Since many of those jobs are concentrated in specific sectors of the economy the percentage of union employment in that sector can be much higher than 11.3% and have a significant impact. Example: teacher's unions.
Agreed. Have a great night.
Are U.S. troops set up in Afghanistan anywhere except there's a running oil pipeline?
There is no pipeline.
Pipe Dreams - The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Still a Dream* - Published on Monday, September 20, 2010
A working pipeline, if it ever gets built, will require a country more stable than Afghanistan is now or will be any time soon. It is too easy to sabotage otherwise, and that would result in billions of dollars down the drain. Nobody is going to risk it.
I'm sure that you are aware of the U.S. involvement where Iraq is concerned. We install a dictator until he gets so out of control, then go in and knock him down, while the war profiteers rejoice.
The US didn't install Saddam. He was a local bully-boy that worked his way up in the Baath socialist/fascist party by native wit and sheer ruthlessness.
So knowing that, don't you think that it's a little peculiar how this whole Sony hack is getting so much press recently?
Not really, no. From what I understand the hack ended up trashing a large percentage of Sony's computers, led to leaks of emails that were fodder for many news and gossip sites, and stopped the release of a movie that was already being advertised. You don't think those extraordinary events would get coverage otherwise?
Is the U.S. creating another flimsy excuse to go to war against N. Korea?
I doubt it, no. Getting into an actual shooting war with North Korea wouldn't be a trivial thing. The body count would be huge if for no other reason than the inevitable crippling of the North Korean state would lead to widespread starvation among a population that is already barely making it. But before that happened the capital of South Korea would be flattened by artillery from North Korea. Nobody wants either outcome.
Do you really have such blind trust in your leaders that you believe any press release that they issue?
I'm willing to be skeptical, but this doesn't seem to be something contrary to the known behaviors of the North Koreans.
Has recent 20th century history taught you nothing?
One of the 20th Century's lessons is that the West has not always been firm in confronting evil regimes such as North Korea's.
Has recent 20th century history taught you nothing? I suggest that you cool your jets for a bit before rushing to judgement, especially when it concerns global matters.
When it comes to global matters there is no shortage of people that get it wrong when the question involves the US.
Unless you are yourself enlisting to be in the infantry's front lines.
Whether I do or don't, have or haven't, I'm pretty sure I can form reasonable opinions and make useful arguments.
* I can't tell you how painful it is to reference Ted Rall, slightly less so for Common Dreams.
Since 2003? Maybe you should look into what countries won oil contracts from the Iraqi Ministry of Oil. That would mainly be European and Chinese companies. US companies didn't tend to be interested due to the turmoil. There was also a lot of work to do in bringing Iraq's oil fields back on-line and up to their potential due to the neglect of Saddam's era. Keeping things running was and is a challenge due to attacks by insurgents.
If you think something else was going on you probably have some unreliable "history" there.