Do you have the GUTS...

[Ura]

The U.S. declared that it would destroy the nuclear plants in Pakistan, which would bring hell to life to every Pakistani.

Strange that I never heard about this from CNN, or any other news station or paper for that matter. It wasn't even mentioned on any late night radio talk shows where all kinds of things turn up like this.
Though if it indeed happened it was certainly hushed out by several governments within hours of you seeing it on CNN.

The U.S. has successfully violated all the rights of a nation, for let it be known, if the threat has not been made, Pakistan would have not allowed the U.S. to use anything...

Actually I believe that the US "bought" their permission and support from Pakistan and India by releasing all the sanctions against them and almost totally erasing the pakistani national debt to the US. They also promised to give aid in relief efforts for the millions of refugees fleeing afghanastan. They used the standard of capitalism, something america is built on, and bought permission with cold hard cash.
Besides that, how do you know that the Pakistani leader would say no other then an educated guess, you're not a mind reader are you?

Tell me ONE good action the U.S. has taken so far...come on. An action that's backed by SOMETHING other than just illusions, delusions, and s**t like that.

So far they haven't fired a shot yet and are still using political muscle. I'd consider that a good thing since it means that less innocent people will be killed.

President of the United States:
...countries will have to decide: either they are with us [the United States], or they're with them [the terrorists]...

NOW, I want you to tell me what the HELL that's supposed to mean.

Its called politcal strong arming. If you really think the US will bomb the snot out of anyone they think has terrorists in their borders then you really don't understand US international politics as well as you may think.
Several countries in the world are remaining neutral in the situation and staying out of it pretty much. The US is saying things like this, albeit stupidly, to harness international support by talking tough, poker players would call it a calculated bluff. It forces people to panic and go off their rockers to do something. The US will NOT bomb or attack a country in this without alot of justification and or proof, even if the justification is highly one sided. Why? Because they need international support in this, they can't do anything without it without looking like the demonic overlord country so many make them out to be. Thankfully the speech writers have smartened up and have gotten out of the talk tough stage of the game for the most part. Hell, if that statement is to be taken and enforced literally I better start building a bunker cause Canada is as good as dead, and almost everyone tends to love Canada.
and no DÛke, I don't think your interpretations are biased, but I don't agree with them from the view point of political science.

Terrorism, I think, has to be random.

Actually true terrorism is never random. Terrorism analysts constantly define terrorism as an initial attack or action that utilizes violence to gain political leverage over a government or large corporate orginization. The goals of such an act is to gain something whether its a change in a policy, the release of disidents, or the hopeful removal of a military force.
Terrorism is never a reaction to a specific event but to a frame of political policies and/or agendas. Thus when a suicide bomber blows up a pizzria its not really terrorism but an attack in a war by someone too stupid (imho) to plant a bomb and detonate it remotely.
The lebanon air hijackings during the 80's are an ideal example of terrorism. The WTC attack technically is not because there were no demands made of any kind (that we know of), its was simply meant to destroy things and kill innocent people. Hence making it more of a guerilla war act then a terrorism act.

Operation Infinite Justice?

This has actually been changed to something more politically correct and non-offensive to religious individuals. I don't remember what though.

Operation Infinite Justice.
Take off every "zig".

Glad to see I'm not the only that had this come to mind.

They're are about to blame Iraq for it too, and they haven't gotten a single piece of leading information that points at Iraq, or, any nation. They're going to take over the Middle East...

Sadly the US does tend far to much to look for reasons to attack Iraq, though I can't really blame them for considering the possibility that Iraq is involved considering how much Sadam Hussien hates the US, but then that wouldn't be Iraq's fault, just they're tyrant president's. If the US is ever going to be at peace with Iraq again I'm afraid it won't be till Sadam and his sons are dead or at least far removed from power.
I really don't believe that they want to take over the middle east, the only major resource thats there is oil and there are many closer resources for it in great abundance. If there is something else then its beyond the eyes of us for the time being.

I still have not seen anything in the papers about Russia flat-out refusing to "help" (and whatever "help" means). I've seen that Iran has refused to let US airplanes use its airspace, but I've also seen that they will refuse sanctuary to bin Laden; they're aiming to be neutral.

Actually Russia is helping by providing and assiting in intelligence and humanatarian needs for refugee relief, they are also keeping the border closed by Tajikistan (<-sp?) with their own troops. Frankly though the Russians can neither handle nor afford another armed conflict. Their military forces are getting underfunded and dated, the only thing that keeps them a superpower class country is their nuclear arsenal, otherwise they really kinda suck.
Iran refused airspace usage, like this was a surprise considering the history between the US and Iran. The fact that they have closed their border and are remaining neutral is a good thing though. The European Union has been trying to gain their support in a greater role but Iran is standing firm to its decision.

Not true. Just because they don't want to help the U.S., doesn't mean anything. The U.S. hasn't been nice to everyone, so why should the countries, who are effectively against terrorsim but against U.S., help the U.S.?

Exactly, which is why some countries, like the above mentioned Iran, are basically staying out of it.
starts digging his bunker just in case

But I bet some people are asking where was it when the IRA was and is setting off bombs?

They stayed out of it because it was an internal matter of the UK that doesn't really effect the US despite some private citizens of Irish decent sending funds to the IRA.
Its also important to note that Bush has stated that the war on terrorism is against terrorist groups with a global reach such as Bin Laden's orginization the al queda (<-sp?) or the Islamic Jihad. Groups such as the IRA, Tamil Tigers, and the Japanese Red Army are being left alone for the time being because the US isn't their target.

So as long as people disagree, I think we'll have terrorism.

Sad but true, welcome to the human race. . .

2. Pakistan is not a EVIL, not even AFGHANISTAN. Its like saying... Canada? that part of the USA... just like Cuba

We are???
I had no idea, I should start asking for my paycheque in US dollars from now on.

Muslim Holy War... can I laugh?

As much as I hate to say it, I got a chuckle out of it when the Taliban started threatning jihad against the US and its allies. Don't get me wrong, its a well known fact that muslim "holy warriors" have an incredible level of resolve and determination, the Mujarhadin are an excellent example of this before the Taliban forced then to disband mostly. But when the Taliban don't have a country in the world thats friendly with them right now and alot of their angry supporters are unarmed extremists and children and their countries greatest weapons are 5 aged Russian MiG's, some stinger StA missles, and a whole crap load of AK-47's it doesn't give me alot to be afraid of on the level of a war. Hell, Canada could kick their ass in a head to head fight and thats almost embarassing because our own military has been sliced to ribbons but government cuts.
I'd be much more worried about 2 or 3 lone extremists blowing up a high school or something like that. The more there are the easier it is to start catching them.

Pakistan may have nuclear weapons (read: WARHEADS), but their carrier systems are severly lacking.

Bingo!
Pakistan's nuclear capability was designed as a deterant to age old rival and neighbor India's nuclear capability. They frankly have never had an interest in developing ICBM technology. They've got much closer problems to deal with.

Granted, we will take these on a case by case basis, but them are fightin words that could anger countries that we wouldn't even target anyway

Very true, though as I stated before its just political strong arming that was stupidly written and presented. Most countries that have nothing to hide and aren't willing to offer major support will know it for the over anxious bluff that it is and make a political counter statement that will show anoyance at the words while diffusing the situation from them at the same time as China did.

So, as long as people exist, we'll have terrorism.
We must establish as soon as possible that this is not a war on terrorism.
If we wanted to truly end terrorism, we'd have to slaughter every human being who isn't in an iron lung (slight exaggeration there).

Not true, people can get along with each other well enough if they try so that there is no need for combat of any kind. If they couldn't we'd already all be dead.

Again, I hope Bush is better than he makes himself seem. Only time will tell.

It was a well known fact before he got into office that Bush is basically an educated idiot. I don't like him as a president and I'm critisized him many times, but so far despite his being a poor speaker with ill chosen words he has handled the situation wonderfully compared to how other presidents would have. He is taking very messured steps and not shooting till he knows he has the right target. He may not have to shoot at all although thats highly unlikely.
Big Bush would have followed up on his gulf war actions and started bombing the piss out of Iraq and Afghanastan right away, Clinton would just fire another big volley of cruise missles and left it alone. If you go back to WWII you could follow in Trueman's footsteps where he ordered the bombing of Tokyo (125,000 dead) and the Japanese didn't surrender, then he dropped the bomb on Hiroshima (75,000 dead) and the Japanese didn't surrender, so he dropped another bomb on Nagasaki (another 75,000 dead) and the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Pretty big jump to go from standard bombing to nuke bombing right off.
Is Bush a really smart man, not really. Is he a careful man, I'd have to say yes for now.

However, I still don't see any reason for the current millitary action. There's a game being played, and we're not seeing it...they don't want Bin Ladin (which is STILL just a prime suspect), they want something else...believe me...

Sometimes what you see is what you get, not every action has a hidden agenda. He wants Bin Laden, but he wants more then Bin Laden in the way that he also wants his networks gone, the oppresive regimes like the Taliban and Hussien gone and cheaper oil to fule his limo with. Pretty standard stuff when it comes down to it as sad as it sounds.

Attack on U.S.===>U.S. responds carelessly===>U.S. wins===>random people across the world get mad===>some take it to the extreme and start a terrorist group===>have a solid plan===>Attack on U.S.===>U.S. rsponds carelessly===>U.S. wins===>random people across the world get mad===>etc...etc...etc...

Allow me to modify this slightly:
Attack on group of people===>group of people responds carelessly===>group of people wins===>random people across the world get mad===>some take it to the extreme and start a terrorist group===>have a solid plan===>Attack on group of people===>group of people rsponds carelessly===>group of people wins===>random people across the world get mad===>etc...etc...etc...
Welcome to the world of human history 101. Its a very grim but factual statement that thats how humans work for the most part.

The answer is territory. That's right. You heard me: Territory. The U.S. is slowly, inch by inch, conquering the world.

Pardon me while I chuckle at this. Its not that the idea behind it is unbelievable, its that the logistics behind it are so enormous that its almost impossible to pull it off in anything close to a short time span, by short I mean say 100 years, without really stirring some serious shit with other major super powers like China, the UK, and others that are just to big and beefy for the US to take. Plus with the fact that the government controls basically change every 4 years without a re-election its hard to believe that every controlling government of the US has the exact same ideas for world domination.

With Nukes, and a massive Navy, the U.S. is next to invincible

As I said somewhere before, if a nuclear able country was facing total obliteration or being conqured they would launch and then there wouldn't be much of a US left to take over the world now would there? The US is just as vulnerable as any other nation in the world and is far from being even close to powerful enough to take it over without turning it into an atomic dustbin and becoming one itself.

With a massive Nuclear Aresnal, the U.S. is near impervious.

Talk about over-rating the bomb. See the above.

Few in the U.S. know that NATO keeps troops in Yugoslavia. Why? CNN doesn't report that. English sources don't report that.

Now your just over exagerating to plain out fibbing. CNN does report that as do several other english media sources. How do I know? Because I had to see it almost every night when I was watching the news on either CNN or BCTV (a Canadian broadcaster.)

Look at the current U.S. influence. At least 75% of the world is somehow directly influenced one way or another by the U.S. Another 50% is influenced politically as well. Finally, the U.S. has much political leverage on most significant third-world countries.

Well thats what happens when countries want American investment and dollars in their economy and the US is the largest source of things like disaster and refugee relief funds and assistance in the world. The only country in the world that has more medical professionals around the world in relief efforts is actually Cuba. Don't like it, then tell all the countries around the world not to deal with US businesses and not to invest in the strong US markets. You'll be laughed at by alot of people because thats the way economics are right now. Its the way Japan was in the 80's when they had the strongest stock markets and economy in the world. Everyone thought that the Japanese were trying to buy them out of existence because of all the heavy off shore investments taking place, then the US caught up and the asian economic crisis hit and poof, Japan plumeted from their throne of being #1.
If they actually believed you and did withdraw the US would crumble like a clay statue in a hurricane because they have to have their economy working for them.

The U.S. is playing this like a chess game. She's moving all her pieces into play without anyone noticing. Worst, we don't even know what some of those pieces are. We don't even know when she will strike and what strategy she's using. However,there is hope.
Throughout the process aquiring those, countries have been disgruntled, and a U.S. conquest of the world will be met with some if not, extreme resistence. The U.S. will find it difficult to establish a complete and true Hegemony.

End Conspiriacy Theory

Its a nice theory, one truely worthy of the Illuminai game by Steve Jackson, but you're really being paranoid about it. Not even the US has the power to take on the world without destroying it.

I'm not going to share them simply because I can't back up my words with a "solid" proof for all of you that accuse me of "not lying," but "mishearing", "reinterperting", or as Mr. FoR calmly put it, "faking."

Solid proof during the best of times is hard to come by until its after the fact or every side of the story confirms it as true.
Heck, some of the conspiracy theories I've heard are so far fetched yet well thought out I wasn't sure to roll over laughing or to start building my underground bunker early.

You just gotta love the people who can think up this stuff...

Actually Spidey, I've thought up far more deadly and effective plans then some of the ones described here, but then I'm also a misanthropist so I guess its only natural for me to do so.

Actually, the U.S. was supporting Iraq because it wanted Iran gone; an excellent example of the U.S. playing power games in the middle East. And answer, me why is the U.S. so concerned about the condition of the Middle East? Oil is not big enough of an excuse.

Well this is called the theory of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Unfortunatly its only really effective until the enemy is gone or at least neutralized in some way then it usually backfires on you.
Oil is more then big enough. Oil is the single largest and most important industry in the world. Without it everything would literally grind to a stop because the worlds economies depend on petrolium products to make things go which in turn make the economy go which is turn makes the fat cats fatter. The US economy is so dependant on oil right now and for years is sad when other much better technologies have been possible for many years. Thats why the US is so concerned with the Middle East, because its the largest oil producing place on earth and they need the product at cheap rates from OPEC to survive for the moment. If they didn't need the oil, thats when I would be really scared for the mid east.

the Christian coalition theory does have merit...and I'll take it into account.

Well then its obviously not the US whos the enemy, but Christians instead. Lets break out the torches and pitch forks and go burn down a church or two.

Nevertheless, how can you explain that most people don't know the U.S. have troops in Yugoslavia?

Because its old news and the typical American public doesn't have the greatest attention span to long developments like this or the ability to retain facts like this in the front of their minds unless they are directly concerned with them. Besides, most of them are busy watching Survivor and Who Wants to be a Millionaire.
Damn you Regis for making the American people uninformed.

My point was that this "war on terrorism" will not end terrorism. No way, no how.

You're right, it won't end it till people learn to get along without fighting and violence, but at least it will keep it to a dull trickle if the authorities around the world stay on the ball.

Obviously I am not advocating that we rend 99.9999% of the Earth's population from life and limb. That possibility is out.

Awwww. . .
puts his chop-o-matic people mulcher away

Just in case no one heard about this, the first non-afghani shots were fired by a British SAS "brick" outside of Kabul doing recon. They apparently exchanged automatic gun fire with Taliban soldiers before dissapearing into the deserts again.
I only read this in one news paper and didn't see it on any of the news programs so its validity is questionable but the news paper is an established one that is known for good reporting of the facts.
goes back to digging his bunker for when the evil Americans try to invade Canada again

 

[Spiderman]

Multani:

Let me put it this way. I'm throwing it out as a strong possibility. Whether you think I 'subscribe' to it or not, shall be your opinion.

Can't give a direct answer, hmmm?

Actually, the U.S. was supporting Iraq because it wanted Iran gone; an excellent example of the U.S. playing power games in the middle East. And answer, me why is the U.S. so concerned about the condition of the Middle East? Oil is not big enough of an excuse.

That's not what I said; the war with Iran was over by the time Iraq invaded Kuwait. What I said was that the US was behind the invasion of Kuwait, having made promises and support to Iraq to do so.

And why do you think oil is not big enough excuse? What is the biggest resource the US consumes? And where does it get it from? And why do people in the US screech when prices for gas (just one application of oil) reach $2 a gallon when people in Europe pay $5-10 a gallon?

Yeah...and China also knows that if the U.S. finds out China attacked the U.S., missiles will go flying and China's economy would be in shambles. Not exactly the most beneficial course of action for China, is it? On the other hand, China's removal from the international scene will put the U.S. in a COMPLETELY undisputed state. No one will dare challenge the U.S. in any major way.

Please, the US is having a hard time as it is trying to link bin Laden to the terrorist attack. You think they're gonna find a further Chinese link?

And frankly, China IS removed from the international scene... when was the last time you heard them trying to influence an event, especially outside of their hemisphere?

Pakistan and India mean nothing because while they are nuclear powers, they lack the ability to fire those nukes at long distances, and also lack the ability to adequately defend themselves from a sustained conventional assault. On the other hand, the Christian coalition theory does have merit...and I'll take it into account.

Uh, having nukes is a bit more than merely having the ability to fire them... there's something called the "spread of information", helping others gain its capability, for one....

Many people watch CNN Spidey...and many people watch Fox and MSNBC which are carbon copies of CNN. Nevertheless, how can you explain that most people don't know the U.S. have troops in Yugoslavia? After all, there is a new puppet leader and the Albanians are free and attacking Serbs with wild abandon. What need is there for NATO troops?

Uh, unless you can quantify "many", I'm gonna say NOT many people watch CNN 'cause a lot of people don't have cable. Or care to watch the news all the way through... And I can't explain how people don't know the US has troops unless YOU can explain how you can make that statement in the first place. Was there a poll done or something?

My dad works in Albania and Macedonia and he isn't seeing anything like that going down.

Actually they're very insightful. Now if only you could open your mind to the possibilty of conspiracy theories, then you might realize things you've never considered before.

It's a good thing conspiracy theories are just that, theories. I'd rather wait until the evidence comes in and THEN try to form conclusions, rather than the other way around.

Ura: You need to stop jumping around like that! I got a bit confused because it wasn't clear who or what you were responding to at times

Thus when a suicide bomber blows up a pizzria its not really terrorism but an attack in a war by someone too stupid (imho) to plant a bomb and detonate it remotely

Actually, I just read an article in the Baltimore Sun[/i](?) that attempted to describe the mentality of suicide bombers in Israel and from what it's saying, they're not stupid, just fanatic enough to believe that they're doing something to further the Palestinian cause. Setting bombs remotely means you have to go in there anywhere and plant the bonbs and then get out; going suicide means you don't have to worry about the getting out part.

This has actually been changed to something more politically correct and non-offensive to religious individuals. I don't remember what though.

It's now Operation Enduring Freedom.

Actually Russia is helping by providing and assiting in intelligence and humanatarian needs for refugee relief, they are also keeping the border closed by Tajikistan (<-sp?) with their own troops.

If you notice the date on the post of which this is a remark to, things have obviously changed since I made my remarks.

 

[Ura]

Spidey:
Sorry, I'll try not to be so erratic. Try mind, success is another question all together.

they're not stupid, just fanatic enough to believe that they're doing something to further the Palestinian cause.

I do understand the suicide bomber mentality, fanatizism is an incredible driving force. I'm just one of those people who would rather live for my cause then die for it, hence why I think dying for it is stupid even though I do reconize the power and mental level of the fanatic on a mission.

Operation Enduring Freedom

Poop, I can't get a silly shockwave flash video out of that. No more zigs for me.
I guess its ok though.


Oh yeah, heres a silly moment for you.
I was looking at a back copy of the Globe and Mail I've got here showing pictures of protesting muslims in Pakistan. Theres a kid in it shouting a protesting along with the rest of them but on the collar of his shirt its got "I -heart symbol- USA" All stiched in nice red and blue. Makes me wonder if some of them even know what they're protesting or if they're there for a party like some of our own anti-globalization protesters.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, considering that they're promised a spot "in heaven" (or with Allah), their families will get monetary compensation, and the rest of the populance will look at them as martyrs, suicide bombers have some motivation going for them.

As I've said before though, you don't see a continual turnover in the upper ranks because of suicide bombers though. They recruit the cannon fodder to do their work for them.

 

[r00tg04t]

eh, i didn't bother to read all the posts, glanced through read a few of them thuroughly it sounds... odd but not unbeliveable, i heard about the pakistani "invasion" thing on CNN too, just wanted to back DÛke up on that, anyways intersting about the chess theory.. i'll shutup now.

 

[DÛke]

...

Spiderman, to Multani:
Can't give a direct answer, hmmm?

Um, Spiderman, I don't think you can answer some of the questions so "directly," so why ask Multani to doing so? In this issue, Spiderman, you seem to look to specifically on things that don't really matter. You've done to a couple of times to me, and probably to others too...

Suppose he said, "yes," he would have done nothing but probably stirr you up, and start a whole new conversation as to why he thinks that...when in fact, it's a popular theory, actually, not something Multani dreamed...

Ura, I admitted it...you guys didn't hear any of that stuff because, like FoR clearly pointed out, it was "fake." I was just trying to make another hype...so more people can call me "biased" and all...for some reason, I want to be called that...I just wanted to be "cool"...

And lastly, but certainly NOT least, thank you r00tg04t for the back up...some of these people are hungry to deny someone...sheesh...think about it, WHY THE HELL WOULD I LIE TO YOU? What's my interest? Jesus, just think for God's sake...or are you afraid that the U.S. just maybe full of s**t, that you're in complete denial?

 

[Spiderman]

Sorry, I just think that it is an easy question to answer, yes or no. What's the cuteness is trying to act all coy and everything?

This is something that can be answered directly. If you can name some specific cases of where I cannot answer directly but can, please refresh my memory.

Same thing about things that "don't seem to matter". I believe that I am trying to respond to stuff that you guys bring up "that don't seem to matter" either, but please refresh my memory on these so I can improve my debating.

I've already said that I believe the US has probably "pushed" Pakistan into supporting them, although I question the threats about nuclear power plants and stuff. I'm reading TWO newspapers, one the Washington Post which pretty much covers almost everything coming out of Washington. Since I can't recollect them mentioning anything about such threats, I merely reserve the right to remain skeptical.

And, seeing how Pakistan is saying that they will not support any military action that will overthrow the Taliban, I don't think they're cowed all that much anyway.

 

[Ura]

Actually Duke, I never said or agreed for FoR's assessment that it was "fake" as you put it. I just said it was strange I hadn't heard the exact same threat that you did from CNN.
The only talk I heard about power plants was what would happen if an air liner was crashed into one of the US's nuclear power plants. The short answer is nothing besides make a mess and kill the hostages for those who are curious.


If you want to get really technical and read the political pressure game the way its being played the US never directly threatened Pakistan at all.
If thats what they did it would be Big Dog threatens Little Dog for a bone and upsets pound for being a bully.
What they did was distinctly different.
Big Dog released a list of Little Dog suspects that it thinks has the bone it wants, little dogs get this list and make the decision to either give up the bone or help the Big Dog get it rather then step in the way of the Big Dog.

The former is political terrorism by holding something in the balance with significant threat of force.
The latter is the political strong arm technique that the US and other governments like to use that doesn't give direct threats, but rather lets possible targets use their own imaginations and then choose where they stand. It often refered to by the legal system as coercion and is frowned upon by most judges as an illegal practice because it offers someone something in return for help that could be falsified by the "little dog". Its similar to bribery in this fact but unlike bribery it does not deal with physical possessions and its only based around dropping subtle hints at what could be a possibility rather then direct threats or offers.

 

[Spiderman]

The only talk I heard about power plants was what would happen if an air liner was crashed into one of the US's nuclear power plants. The short answer is nothing besides make a mess and kill the hostages for those who are curious.

I just read a short article about that in one of my newspapers and the impression I got was that they weren't sure what would happen since they hadn't really considered that scenario. They were looking into it now though (and beefing up security anyways).

 

[Ura]

Trust me, it wouldn't do anything, at least not critical. I did an in-depth report and examination on nuclear power in grade 12 as well I've actually toured a plant in Ontario which isn't as up to date as the American ones.
The containment areas are designed to withstand and collapse in on an explosion up to 5 megatons or a 7.8 earthquake on the richter scale. The containment areas are subsurface and then have a high strength steel and concrete inner zone wall, then on the outside surface of that wall is one made of a solid lead alloy to act as minor radiation shielding in the case of a melt down and implosion. Beyond this though there is another highly reinforced steel and concrete shell which is what an aircraft would impact on and demolish as it explodes from the crash. The wings would get sheared off on the outside preventing the majority of the jet fule from entering the complex. The body of the plane itself would crumple and from the impact as it speared through and then halt on the inner zone containment wall. Plus there is the main containment unit itself that basically an armored brick in an environmentally contained area.
Its only older plants that are vulnerable and the US hasn't got alot of those anymore. They're very good about keeping them up to date.
The worst nightmare would be multiple crashes at the same site. The first plane would shear away enough of the outer shell to give a second plane a great chance as deep penetration and doing significant damage to the inner containment zones. Then its up to the emergency shut down proceedures to kick in.
The only other option is to try and go down the middle of one of the exaust cones, not exactly an easy shot with a big jet liner.