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

AirTran emergency lndg.

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
CatYaaak said:
The Japanese were, if anything, more bloodthirsty and fanatical than our current terrorists. Ask anyone from a nation occupied by them. They were certainly more numerous and could do more damage. They even invented planned, suicidal attacks with airplanes. They loved beheading prisoners when they didn't use them as slaves. The Rape of Nanking was not just a metaphor. They regarded everyone not like them as subhuman.

And yes, there was a quasi-religous aspect to why they acted as they did, and why they were pacified so abruptly.

The Japanese Empire was a far, far bigger problem than handfuls of Islamic terrorists. To compare the two in terms of being an actual threat to our nation is silly.

The terrorists big mistake is this. If they ever DID become a real threat to the very survival of our nation, and we really DID move to a true, war footing, raise and equip an army of millions like in WW2, and concentrate on wiping them out and anyone associated with them....we could. And if it ever came to that, with "terrorist hordes" attacking us, we will.

And if that STILL didn't work, we'd begin to nuke whatever we thought was necessary and go the "total war" route, instead of nitpicking and worrying about collatoral damage as we are now.

Therin lies their lack of understanding us, and their stupidity. The Japanese were once that way too.

Why on earth would we nuke Iraq now? Hussein is gone. Killing insurgents (especially foreign ones) trying to destablize the country and giving a new government breathing rooom is the name of the game, not wiping it out. I don't neccesarily agree with this, but they are quite capable of destroying themselves without our help.

We don't need to nuke Iran either, just take out thier nuke-bomb making capability. Of course it would be a good idea to let them know that if they unleash terrorists in retaliation we'll just add them to the list of nuke-able spots. Certainly we'd actively work to destroy the regime, and let's not even pretend we'd get into nation-building afterwards. Any new one could not be more dangerous than the one they have.

If there was a way to attack Israel and plausibly frame France for it, I'd add that to the mix. It would be fun to sit back and watch it escalate out of control. As a bonus, they both have nukes, and we're upwind from both of them.

CatYaak, you missed your calling. You should be teaching world history:)
 
Wow! If anybody remembers what this thread is originally about I'll be surprised.

If anybody cares, I asked the chief pilot (TL) what happened here. I was curious if the crew called to confer with dispatch on the divert. They apparently did not because this dude decided to heat up his MRE and it produced some heat and odor so they got the airplane on the ground, if anybody cares.

And now back to our ongoing political debate.
 
jstarav8r said:
Wow! If anybody remembers what this thread is originally about I'll be surprised.

If anybody cares, I asked the chief pilot (TL) what happened here. I was curious if the crew called to confer with dispatch on the divert. They apparently did not because this dude decided to heat up his MRE and it produced some heat and odor so they got the airplane on the ground, if anybody cares.

And now back to our ongoing political debate.

When did TL get the promotion? Pretty sure it's FP.
 
Actually, a better scenario would be to let them know that any further hostilities will result in the following:

First hostility . . . . we destroy their shrine in Medina

Second hostility . . . we destroy their shrine in Mecca

Third hostility . . . . . we destroy their shrine in Jerusalem

fourth hostility . . . . . and so on.

If the consequences of the Islamofascists' actions are the destruction of the holiest sites to Muslims, perhaps the world's Muslims will wake the hell up and put an end to it themselves.

Problem is . . . no one has the big brass clanky ones to make it our stated policy.

I apologize for the continuation of the hijacking of this thread but I couldn't let this quote go without commenting on it. Ty may have the answer. The fanatics may not be afraid to die or care if their family does but maybe the threat of destruction to all their "Holy" shrines might make the masses uprise and finally take control of their "peaceful" religion.
 
[qYuote=BSkin]When did TL get the promotion? Pretty sure it's FP.[/quote]

Well this is why I don't ever post. Somebody always looking to skewer what you say. Did not think it would be one of my own.

I stand corrected, I asked the "Manager of Flying - 717" (TL). How's that!
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top