Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Air France Pilot arrested again

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dominicinco

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Posts
99
Another AirFrance Pilot was arrested for joking that 'the plane will blow up' and 'he will blow up' to a TSA agent when he passed through security and something in his bag was deemed suspicious. He boarded the plane but shortly afterwards was escorted off in handcuffs after TSA reported it to security.

Kind of stupid on behalf of the pilot to be saying stuff like that to mindless TSA agents. I guess he was pissed that they were harrassing him..
 
Dominicinco said:
Another AirFrance Pilot was arrested for joking that 'the plane will blow up' and 'he will blow up' to a TSA agent when he passed through security and something in his bag was deemed suspicious. He boarded the plane but shortly afterwards was escorted off in handcuffs after TSA reported it to security.

Kind of stupid on behalf of the pilot to be saying stuff like that to mindless TSA agents. I guess he was pissed that they were harrassing him..

Yesterday was an anniversary for which I would like to
forget.

But I can't, nor will I ever. Over 200 US MARINES were killed
in a senseless bombing. This was 20 years ago already.
I was a MARINE at the time 32 miles offshore when this
happened.

This was the start of the attacks against the UNITED STATES
of AMERICA.

This Frog (FRENCH) that made his statement, should be
content he's alive in the US. Had this Knob Libs made this
statement in Israel against El AL he might be pushing
daisies.

You might not like the mindless(as you call them)TSA agent's,
Try giving them some respect. Did they create this structure.
If your a professional pilot(I doubt), or hope not. If you are,
you have shown poor qualities as a professional pilot and more than likely are a wanna be airline pilot.

I'll bet I have more time in the box, including in your mothers.
Than you do taxi time.
 
I hate the French, they remind me of democrats.
 
I think thrust master is on drugs. Oh yeah, and I hate people that are so stupid they can't use their own common sense to come to a decision on an issue or problem, so they choose a political party to do it for them.
 
I hate the bigots, they remind me of republicans

I have some history for you that you missed.

Not only is the Republican party the party of Lincoln, but the Republicans are responsible for the passage of the civil rights act, over the protests of Senate Democrats.

Pretty bigoted, huh?

:D :D :D
 
and I hate people that are so stupid they can't use their own common sense to come to a decision on an issue or problem, so they choose a political party to do it for them.

What a wonderful display of your understanding of political parties and their purpose. I know that I just learned something...
 
I'm sure we are going to see a lot more of this stuff happening as more and more people are getting upset with the TSA.

Especially as the media are getting every single story of persons passing "illegal" stuff past the TSA anyway.
 
Timebuilder said:
I have some history for you that you missed.

Not only is the Republican party the party of Lincoln, but the Republicans are responsible for the passage of the civil rights act, over the protests of Senate Democrats.

Pretty bigoted, huh?

:D :D :D

mmk, TB, put down the crack pipe, stop comparing the antebellum Republicans to the bible thumping pricks in the Senate of today, and read up on LBJ, and his Head Start dealings on the late sixties

pretty easy, huh?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
I hate the bigots, they remind me of republicans

I second the above.. 04" will come soon enough and the "circus" will be gone..

3 5 0

Lenin, "He" is better off though today with Wdumbya. :D RIGHT
 
and read up on LBJ, and his Head Start dealings on the late sixties

I grew up in the fifties and sixties, so believe me, you don't want to trot out LBJ as an example of racial tolerance. I'll take a Bible thumper anyday over a misguided egomaniac with delusions of grandeur. To be fair, your did see black people on the LBJ ranch. In the servant's quarters.

Even his "war on poverty' was an abject failure, spending trilions of dollars over 30 years to do nothing but promote broken families, teen pregnancies, and welfare dependancy. What a legacy.

04" will come soon enough and the "circus" will be gone..

I don't know what you guys are going to do when GW gets re-elected. I can't wait for you to spin the election, the vote counting, the turnout...we will have our hands full here, that much is certain.

That's easy enough for a liberal to undestand. :D
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thrust Master wrote on 10-25-2003 13:09:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominicinco wrote on 10-25-2003 11:40:
So what if you have more hours, personally i dont give a flying f*ck.. those TSA's dont do sh*t, and i bet youre probably one yourself or your mother is so you feel the need to defend them. As far as your mother goes, i hope you two enjoy 'quality' time with each other when you porking each other in both holes. ya homo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Slam me all you want you **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ing NIP, your just an import
to this country in which allows little mindless **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**s like yourself
to voice themself's. Go wack off to Hillary Clinton pictures
while you invision another atomic bomb exploding in your
slant eyed face you little asian knob lips.

my response...
HEy f*ckhead, good to see your interested in my homepage, probably wacking off to me right now, ya f ag.
how was the military sh*thead, get poked everyday by your buddys?
you can take your homo a$$ and stick it in your moms you inbred trailer park trash.
i puke on people like you, in fact i *^% people like you.. nann mofo. get a clue biatch.
dom
 
It's like Dieterly said...

...posting and drinking don't mix.

Not that that's ever stopped me but we'll save that for another time.

Back to the French: I luv 'em. They're so smug.

The problem is the TSA which takes itself FAR TOO seriously. Ironically that's the complaint some have of the French.

The whole world has losts its sense of humor.

Thank god for GWB and Dan Quayle.:) :D :cool: ;) :p
 
I second the above.. 04" will come soon enough and the "circus" will be gone..

C'mon 3 5 0, I think you (as well as everyone else on this board) know that the "circus" won't be gone, there will just be a new act in the center ring. Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter, once they get in the White House things just seem to go down the tubes. Bush had the highest public support just after 9/11, now people don't seem to like him b/c the media is doing everything it can to make the situation in Iraq look like it is not getting better, which is a lie. I don't know how I would have gone about doing what Bush decided to do but I do know this, if he had decided to do nothing (when EVERY American was calling for action to be taken) his public support would be even lower than it is today.
As a prez, you have to make some tough decisions that not everyone will agree with. Remember Clinton? What was he thinking? He's the frickin' president...he could have had any woman he wanted and he chose Monica?!!??! I think that the people whom were destined for Saddam's death chambers were happy to see him removed from power but you don't see them being interviewed on TV.

Here is the question I pose to all who were opposed to the war:
Would there have been another terror attack on the US within the past 2 years had the US stood idle and done nothing?

My answer is Yes. The war effort definitely interrupted terrorist cells and their money and sent their leader into hiding. Heck, we even arrested or killed many of the higher-ups in Al-Quida <sp?>. And the WMD...you know that the terrorists have access to them...they are just hidden away (probably in a different country) where we can't find them. When looking at the circumstances that have faced our current prez, I think he has done a pretty decent job. If you were in his shoes, what would you have done?

Remember, it's easy to second-guess as hindsight is 20/20.

just my .02
 
I do like French Fries though. Kind of ironic dont you think.
I also like Democrats, they make me smile. But some do smell pretty bad.
 
I'll bite

Flying Illini--You wrote, "Here is the question I pose to all who were opposed to the war: Would there have been another terror attack on the US within the past 2 years had the US stood idle and done nothing?"

I'll play along because your question seems to be sincere. All I ask of you is that as you read my response you won't fall back into the old "Us and Them", "Right and Wrong", "Good and Bad" way of thinking that the media loves because it's easier to carve up a complicated issue in 30 minutes that way.

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 1991. In the interest of brevity I won't dissect the dirty little games America has played with Saddam ever since the 1980s; I just want to be clear that our relationship with Iraq had been checkered at best and we respected their sovereignity when it was convenient to do so and colored the regime as Hitleresque when it was convenient to do so.

So the question, over the course of the last 20 years, as to whether or not Iraq is a serious threat to the rest of the world is dubious at best.

In 2001, as I don't need to tell you, America was attacked on her own soil for the first time in history. Pearl Harbor doesn't count *in the same way* because Hawaii wasn't a state at the time and although it was a strategic target I don't think one can argue that a direct hit on Wall Street, the Pentagon and probably the White House are on par with Pearl Harbor.

At any rate, after the September attacks, I *supported* the invasion of Afghanistan because, like everyone else, I had been awakened with a slap in the face to the depth of the terrorists hate; the depth of the resources; the depth of their cunning; the depth of their resolve.

In my eyes, the attacks were tantamount to a declaration of war and as a sovereign nation we had a right to defend ourself. If invading Afghanistan would prove to hinder (or even halt) the efforts of terrorists then I supported it.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and encourged a revision to foreign policy. That combination, I believe, is the solution to continued security.

However. It's business as usual with the White House and the invasion of Iraq proves it. I believe this administration is lying and has lied all along with respect to Iraq.

I don't believe the U.S. can afford to fight two simultaneous wars and continue with the ordinary Republican agenda (tax cuts, less government) at home. This more so with the latest threats of North Korea.

America is in a crisis. If we are a ship tossed in a storm we need to take down the sails, close the hatches, tie everything down and take care of ourselves first. Later, after the storm, if the ship is still worthy (maybe after some small repairs) we can continue to sail.

But I haven't answered your question yet: Would the attacks have continued if America stood idle?

My short answer is: If by idle, you mean business as usual, then I must say, Yes.
 
The war on terrorism is a war we can't afford NOT to fight.

In the grand scheme of things, 9/11/01 was a very minor terrorist attack. In a world of state-sponsored terrorism and WMD research by rouge nations, we may have avoided an attack that would have been truly devestating to this country.

Whatever price we end up paying in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be seen as a true bargain compared to the unimaginable alternatives if we had remained passive.

Our success in this war can be measured by the kind of terrorist attacks we have seen post-9/11. Mostly ineffective attacks launched in terrorist home countries like Iraq and Saudia Arabia. I'd say we're doing fairly well!
 
Vladimir Lenin said:
mmk, TB, put down the crack pipe, stop comparing the antebellum Republicans to the bible thumping pricks in the Senate of today, and read up on LBJ, and his Head Start dealings on the late sixties

pretty easy, huh?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mmk, Vladimir Lenin (commie), put down the crack pipe, stop comparing bible thumping preachers to Republicans of today, and read up on Tancredo, and his efforts to curb illegal immigration and end race-based caucuses.

pretty easy, huh?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Impersonating you makes me feel stupid.
 
Last edited:
I also dont like Vladimir, i bet that he does not smell so good either.
 
Timebuilder said:
I grew up in the fifties and sixties, so believe me, you don't want to trot out LBJ as an example of racial tolerance. I'll take a Bible thumper anyday over a misguided egomaniac with delusions of grandeur. To be fair, your did see black people on the LBJ ranch. In the servant's quarters.

Even his "war on poverty' was an abject failure, spending trilions of dollars over 30 years to do nothing but promote broken families, teen pregnancies, and welfare dependancy. What a legacy.



I don't know what you guys are going to do when GW gets re-elected. I can't wait for you to spin the election, the vote counting, the turnout...we will have our hands full here, that much is certain.

That's easy enough for a liberal to undestand. :D

D3mn you, TB. You took the words right out of my mouth! ;)
 
I have an interesting question: If California can recall their governor because he f'ked up, why can't we recall the U.S. President because he f'ked up on Iraq (pre- and post-war) and our economy (which has been stifled by record deficits)? Tread carefully here kids--the Republicans started (and publicly backed) the California initiative.
 
Vladimir Lenin said:
now how does our discussion of the French, TSA and the seemingly conservative (by today's standards) antics of LBJ turn into allegations of incest?
Anyone else find it ironic that Mr "Lenin" takes such a liberal, left wing stance!?

Funny thing about communists... each new generation of "thinking" lefties really believe *they* can make communism work!

The dems of late have no leg to stand on wrt racial bias. For goodness sake, one of their Senate leaders (Byrd) is a former Klansman!

AeroBoy - I have an interesting question: If California can recall their governor because he f'ked up, why can't we recall the U.S. President because he f'ked up on Iraq (pre- and post-war) and our economy (which has been stifled by record deficits)? Tread carefully here kids--the Republicans started (and publicly backed) the California initiative.

What's your point!? The recall was allowed under CA law! you saying the people can't use the legal provisions of their state constitution to recall an elected official, or are you just chapped your "man" got recalled?

I suggest some further study in the laws of the land (you must have slept in state and fed gub'ment classes). Try this link, read and think...

www.usconstitution.org
 
Last edited:
Recall

You can't recall the president because there is no law that permits it for the President. That is a Cali thing, not a US law.
 
If California can recall their governor because he f'ked up, why can't we recall the U.S. President because he f'ked up on Iraq (pre- and post-war) and our economy (which has been stifled by record deficits)? Tread carefully here kids--the Republicans started (and publicly backed) the California initiative.

Your question contains a unique perspective: an assumption on your part (and on the part of those who are seeking the democrat nomination for president, becuase they know they can't be seen as supporting the actions of the President) that we have somehow made an error in Iraq. If you look at what was being said by the naysayers beforehand, this has gone extremely well. We knew that there would be pockets of strong resistance, as we have found in Falluja. We knew that keeping a peace would be more difficult than winning a war. But I never imagined two to five America casualties ever day. I expected a hundred. So, by my standard, we are doing very well, indeed.

Ah, the economy. No president has an immediate effect on the economy. There is always a delay. Just now, last year's tax rebates are coming home to roost, having prevented far worse economic times. Walter Williams, the economist, has a bunch of good material on taxes and presidents.

Why are we in the situation we are in now? There are a number of reasons.

First, economies are cyclical in nature. After the greatest expansion in American history, this economy HAD to retract and regroup. Because of other factors, we have seen an over correction.

Second, we (that's the sum of all investors) poured money into tech stocks and dot com's that we had imagined would make a "future" profit, and we valued them on that basis. We ended up with an entire market segment built on speculation, and people just kept piling on. It was a bubble that had to burst, and it did.

Third, executives engaged in the biggest swindles since Joseph Kennedy in the 1920's. Did you know that the huge Kennedy fortune was built on the then-legal practice of insider trading?

It is incorrect to lay the wrongdoings of these Enron and Arthur Anderson executives at the feet of Clinton, just because it happened on his watch. It is correct, however, to blame the declining moral and ethical fiber of our society for the declining ethics in accounting and trading that are the hallmarks of this wave of scandals.

Fourth, we are still adapting to a global economy, where fast shipping, the internet, and hundredes of millions of people who are happy to make three American dollars a day are changing the landscape of manufacturing. We are going to have to adapt as a nation and find the things that we make best, and then be careful to avoid regulating the companies out of business, or simply out of the country. In many places, the environmental movement has accomplished its ultimate purpose: don't build anything here, and don't manufacture anything here. We have avoided environmental impact alright, but has this come at a price we are willing to pay as a nation? We have raised the minimum wage due to cries of "fairness!", but are we being fair to the thousands of Americans whose labor cost has priced them out of the job market? I think not.

Fifth, record deficits are the result when you must spend more than you are taking in, in this case to ramp up our hoplessly poor preparations for defense and anti-terrorism in the wake of 9-11. Fortunately, this condition will not last as we stimulate spending with tax cuts. I hope there will be more tax cuts among those people who pay the MOST taxes in America, so we can really get this wagon rolling.

Unfortunately, there is such lack of knowlege by many in the democrat base that this will be seen as "tax cuts for the rich" instead of "tax cuts for those who will need to hire more employees". Also, there is a lack of understanding that tax cuts increase revenues to the treasury.

Of course, if people understood the economic impact of tax cuts then there would be far fewer democrats, and the party sure isn't going to go out and give economics lessons that would support the President's policies. Instead, they are going to play to your emotions with rhetoric right out of the days of the Molly Maguire's and the sixties. As people become better educated, they have a larger stake in the society and they understand where they have been mislead. Keeping money flowing into public schools will ensure that we keep several generations so politically correct and "dumbed down" that the democrat base can flourish and be easily lead. Over time, this effort will fail.


As far as recall, this is a state by state phenomena. There is no provision in the US constitution for such a referendum as is in California. The closest we come to that is impeachment. I'm sure there will be a left wing attempt to impeach Bush, as I've already heard the rumblings. I'm sure you can get behind that, can't you, Aeroboy?
 
Last edited:
Your feeble attempts at subtle internet innuendo reek of a 65 year old, logging on for the first time, using those handy AOL's CDs...

You mean as opposed to a still wet behind the ears teenager who has spent more time with computers than he has with actual humans? :eek:
 
Vladimir Lenin said:
Your feeble attempts at subtle internet innuendo reek of a 65 year old, logging on for the first time, using those handy AOL's CDs...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hilarious. It's like he strung a couple of non-related words together in order to sound intelligent. What the hell is "subtle internet innuendo"?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom