AirTran emergency lndg.

[BSkin]

So as far as the H2O being taken away and a flight diverted because a pax had a bottle then it is just another example of TSA not doing a good enough check. I think the crew did the right thing. Park the jet and figure it out on the ground, not in the air after the bomb goes off. Just my 2 cents.

Not a big TSA fan, but I don't think you can blame them when there's all sorts of places to get 'liquid' beyond their security.

 

[Say Again Over]

Not quite sure what happenend to this thread, I heard this nugget caused a concern for the crew when he decided to heat up his MRE, anyone else hear this?

 

[se1776]

I wonder how much extra fuel was wasted to divert and continue to the destination just because of a bottle of water?

I wonder why the industry is all screwed up

 

[Old School 737]

Not a big TSA fan, but I don't think you can blame them when there's all sorts of places to get 'liquid' beyond their security.

I thought that they were doing searches at the gate for this stuff and I do see some of that going on but to have the honor system that you won't buy a bottle once inside security and bring it on is not going to work as demostrated in this example.

 

[PanPan]

Not quite sure what happenend to this thread, I heard this nugget caused a concern for the crew when he decided to heat up his MRE, anyone else hear this?

I just love the fact that it took 82 posts for the truth to come out. Some idiot decided it would be a good idea to place his MRE heatum up thingy in the seat back pocket. I'll let you all take another 82 posts to explain what happened next.

Sometimes ya'll remind me of a poster I saw once.

"What does arguing on the internet and competing in the special olympics have in common?

Even if you win your still retarded."

 

[acaTerry]

"what if" it was a 26 year old, Iraqi male, and in his other hand he had a lighter.

Oh boy, get ready for the attack of the liberals on that one, SkiAndSurf

 

[CatYaaak]

<<
Leaving them alone?...Hmmmm, what a novel concept. I think you are on to something there. Afterall, when it comes to the middle east, we haven't tried that one yet - It's just might be crazy enough to work - seeing how this course upon which we have been forever staying (following this precessing gyro of a clue...I mean fearless leader) is spiraling ever closer to the rising terrain.

"Whoop whoop...pull up!".

Nice diatribe Arkady....here's a dose of reality re your "leaving them alone" theory...i.e. no Western powers involved. Let's first jump back to Gulf War 1, since current events are merely a continuation;

With no western powers getting involved in that region, one man, Saddam Hussein, would be sitting on top of, and controlling 40% of the world's known oil reserves in Iraq, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia. If you think any of the neighbouring Arab countries could have militarily stopped him, you are living in a dream world. If you think he didn't have designs and visions of a Baathist, neo Pan-Arabian caliphate centered in Baghdad, then your dreamworld is a convenient one based on your relative distance from where his tanks were parked.

Even discounting the obvious, worldwide economic collapse in every industrialized nation to such a situation, there is another issue....

We know that even internationally-isolated (read "no involvement, just containment"), backward-poor, and with no oil North Korea eventually built nuclear weapons and a means to deliver them.

We know that even without the help of the French and isolated from the West, Iran, with enough petrodollars to fund it themselves, will most likely gain nuclear weapons in the next few years.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that Iraq, with petrodollars, plenty of Euro customers, and a Dictator proven to be committed to delusional, expansionist policies could just as easily have done what North Korea, Pakistan, India, S. Africa did before..develop nukes. We know the French were perfectly willing to build him a reactor that could produce the materiel....they did once already. Just like they built Israel's. And just like North Korea, SH had a son groomed and ready to take over...in fact 2 sons...the back-up son crazier than either his brother or father.

If you think he, or his sons, wouldn't have eventually gotten them, even at a cost of starving half his own population, you're kidding yourself because you have a political axe to grind. It's certainly not an view based on any reality, or history.

And of course...

The end result would..and possibly still will be...someone in the area taking an atomic potshot at Israel, which will respond not only in kind, but may just decide to light-up every "enemy" capital in the region if it thinks it's going down.

Your theory of "leaving them alone/appeasement" is merely isolationist and hope for the best. But it's naive to think it will change the mind of the extremists. Do you know that Boutros Boutros Ghali...Sec. Gen. of the UN during the Rawandan Massacres that killed 800,000 to 1.1 million in a few weeks, blames the U.S. for it? Because the U.S. when Clinton was Prez DIDN'T get involved? Are you clueless to the fact that if the U.S. removed every last soldier abroad, numbnuts like him (and others) would be trying to deflect blame away from their own corrupt regimes by using any handy, even nebulous, connection like "U.S. farm policy", or "not funding the U.N.".

People like him (and Annan) find a large following...anyone wanting to blame America for the world's ills. Guess what?..it works with the ignorant masses. People like you do the same, for America doing the opposite, and it works..for the ignorant masses.

You're mistake is that you actually think "Logic" comes into play when trying to dissuade emotional, ignorant, swayed-by-rumor lunatics. Polio is making a comeback in some African countries because the "rumor" is that the U.S. is purposely spreading AIDS through polio vaccines. Hundreds of people die in anti-Western riots and embassies get torched throughout the Middle East because of a purposeful whipping-up (by an Egyptian) of hatred based on some editorial cartoons published in a small Danish paper nobody reads.

Sunnis and Shiites have been killing and hating each other for 1,000 years, and yet you think sectarian violence in Iraq is Bush's doing for "not leaving them alone, so they hate us". You're right, but only in the respect that SH was the one doing all the killing, gassing, murdering and torturing. Nazi-esque, Baathist regimes are kind of like that, you know.

Or rather, you obviously don't.

Oh, and if you're going to use innuendo based on stock prices that the war was somehow made-to-order by Puppet Bush for his Corporate Masters, then I suppose even WW2 could be painted in the same light. Obviously, FDR was merely doing GM/Douglas/etc etc. Corp's bidding.

Whatever.

 

[Ty Webb]

Keee-rist . . . . I agree with Cat Yaak on something . . . the world is truly coming to an end. Repent, non-LCC mofo's!!!!!!!


.

 

[FN FAL]

With no western powers getting involved in that region, one man, Saddam Hussein, would be sitting on top of, and controlling 40% of the world's known oil reserves in Iraq, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia.

So you're saying the invasion was over oil?

 

[Mamma]

FN FAL: "So you're saying the invasion was over oil?"

Wars have been fought throughout history for far less. You still don't understand what we are up against.

 

[CatfishVT9]

I just love the fact that it took 82 posts for the truth to come out. Some idiot decided it would be a good idea to place his MRE heatum up thingy in the seat back pocket. I'll let you all take another 82 posts to explain what happened next.

Sometimes ya'll remind me of a poster I saw once.

"What does arguing on the internet and competing in the special olympics have in common?

Even if you win your still retarded."

Here's a poster idea: "You must be retarded if you can't spell you're"

Oh and for Arkady, you're right, things would be going much better if the Hezbocrats were in charge.

 

[CatYaaak]

So you're saying the invasion was over oil?

First, there's no 1 reason. The world doesn't work like that.

Was there only 1 reason for declaring war on Germany in WW2? They didn't attack us like the Japanese. Was it because Germany declared war on us and we merely responded in kind? Because they were proven agressors in Europe? Because Hitler was a fanatic trying to impose his National Socialism on nations by force of arms? Is there even debate as to whether there was just 1 reason we went to war in Europe?

There were plenty of good reasons to go to war with Nazis. Appeasement had been tried; didn't work. There's no difference in fanatical individuals whether they be National Socialist or Baathist dictators, Imperial/bushido-driven Imperialists, or religious extremists...not in 1939, nor in 2006.

Likewise, there were plenty of good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein and his sons. "Containing" North Korea didn't stop them from developing nukes. "Leaving them alone" certainly ensured Kim Il Sung was free to hand down his regime, which means 56 years after the initial invasion of SK by the North we still have decades of that threat to look forward to. For this nuclear threat you can thank HST because like he said, "the buck" stopped with him.

How many North Korea's do we want our children to deal with? You can't stop technological proliferation, and just like you see satellite dishes and mobile phones in places that won't even provide themselves with clean drinking water or food, seeking the nuclear "Holy Grail" is something that a few will starve their own to obtain. SH was exactly that kind of fanatic.

Carter didn't even begin the job in 1979 when fanatics took over U.S. territory (embassy) and held hostages. That amounts to "appeasment", emboldening them and their ilk, and the susequent "hands off" policy didn't stop the regime from holding rallies every Friday for the last 25 years denouncing the "Great Satan" America. Nobody here ever fired a shot at them, and most of the brainwashed of today weren't even born or out of diapers in 1979.

Bush 1 didn't finish the job in Iraq in 1991, appeasing the U.N. and of course SH by "leaving him alone" after ejecting him from Kuwait. Not desroying his ability to make war during the Clinton years merely provided Saudi-snubbed OBL with his greatest recruiting tool of all...American/Western troops "occupying" the country with the 2 Holy Mosques. That those Western troops were protecting against invasion by Iraq... a secular, socialist-regime even OBL professed to hate...matters not to the religious fanatic. It's an excuse to kill.

They do NOT function on logic, nor are there logical "root causes". Their willingness to indiscriminately kill..even themselves... is the only thing that sets them apart. Not only will they happily blow up a marketplace full of children, they'll also blow up a monument built to memorialize the dead Innocents, like they did last week.

War over oil? Partly, because that's what Kuwait and Eastern Saudi Arabia have that have made them "strategic" for the last 80 years.. You may not have noticed, but we've been willing to go to war "over oil" in the region for decades (since FDR). This willingness is why scenarios of war in SW Asia between the US/USSR were played out more than any other except another Euro-conflict. It's why we sold Saudis F-15s when Israel was the only other country enjoying that export. We lent our AWACs to the defense of Saudi during the Cold War. Oil is no different than any other strategic resource, except that it is by far the most important one in this industrialized age.

But we aren't the first. I'm sure you know that is was "for oil" that the British and Nazis (with their proto-Baathist allies) were fighting over the ex-Ottoman/UK protectorate of Iraq during WW2. "For oil", particularily the British pipeline across Tranjordan terminiting in Haifa, played into Irael being carved out post-war. "For oil" was the primary reason control of the Suez Canal became a flashpoint in the 50's, the UK and France aligning itself against Egypt, war thwarted by the U.S. supporting Egypt. Are those Euro black marketeers oil SH enjoyed during sanctions...in effect supporting and helping to prop up SH's regime....any less guilty than the U.S. is now for deaths in Iraq? Buying black market oil and torpedoing sanctions surely is "appeasement".

Euros get upset when one of their own Socialist dictators like milosevic or Hitler is running amok in their own yard, but turn a blind eye when people they regard as mere, former colonial subjects are the ones being slaughtered by a Dictator espousing Euro-spawned socilaist ideologies like Baathism. It's no accident that France, Germany, and Russia embraced the guy.

The greatest hypocricy of all, of course, is the French admonitions in 2002/2003. Of all Western nations, no country is more guilty of blatently "going to war" over their colonial holdings for resources. French Indochina, half of Africa, Levant/Syria etc etc...all places they have sent their military or paras to force this very thing..and those places certainly weren't on a course to develop nukes like Iraq.

Saying this war was "for oil" sounds conveniently trite, but you could also say we went to war with the Japanese "for resources", of which oil was certainly one in the East Indies. After all, the Japanese Empire needed (in their view) the Southeast Asian Co-prosperity Sphere. They were convinced that their asian neighbours should have asian masters, not the Dutch, British, and French.

The idea of attacking Pearl Harbour was to cripple American influence in Euro-colonized areas they wanted to be their own...they were COUNTING on an American appeasement policy and being "left alone" after attacking. They thought it would be a short war resulting in a stalemate. The U.S. demanding unconditional surrender was something they had not planned on, except perhaps Yamamoto. If you're a cynic, you could easily suggest that we went to war "over oil and rubber", because that's what motivated the Japanese...economics as seen by fanatics.

Atomic bombs were the only thing that brought a fanatical Japanese war ministry...perfectly willing to sacrifice every citizen...to heel and only because the Emperor himself intervened when nukes convinced him national suicide wasn't worth it.

We did appease the Japanese in the respect of allowing him to remain emperor, but then again, they weren't about to go about pursuing nukes themselves. We did not "leave them alone" after the war...quite the opposite.

The key point; the Japanese populace still considered the Emperor to be a Divine being. Their willingness to drop fanaticism was influenced by his word, considered Divine. There was a religous aspect, and therefore, no after-war insurgency which could have easily happened had he not done so.

"Reasons" aren't mutually exclusive. Ethically, SH was a pathalogical, murdering, torturing expansionist a-hole of a Dictator..but there are many of those in the world. Still, some would say that is reason enough. Others would argue his threat in an area of strategic resource-importance (oil) made it necessary. Even without invading, the neccesity to maintain a containing military presence in countries sharing a border with him only served to inflame religious extremists. There's a cause-effect reason that begins through most of the Clinton-era terrorist attacks against American barracks, embassies, ships in the 90's, culminating in 9-11. OBL's rallying-point of hatred wasn't the plight of the Palestinians etc.o....it was our visible, military presence in Saudi.

But even laying aside more minor things like the world's economy collapsing if one despot controls the oil spigot, the main reason for invading the place is to remove the eventual nuclear threat. The Iraelis didnt remove it forever 25 years ago with the bombing of one reactor. The same guy was in charge afterwards..and after him, his sons.

Personally, I think we should have left Iraq after SH was pulled out of his rat-hole, given his sons were dead, and left the country to it's own devices. The road leading to eventual nukes was closed, and a militarily de-fanged Iraq, even one embroiled in internal sectarian fighting, poses no threat to it's neighbours and therefore there's no reason to keep a large military presence in the region.

He may be dumb as a box of rocks, but Bush 2's decision to topple SH was just finishing a job his father didn't, and an ever-growing threat Clinton wouldn't face because HIS only concern was how he looked during his years in office, not the future. "No more North Koreas" should have been our stated reason, IMO.

Ostriches can pretend SH wouldn't have been pursuing them, or can't realize he would have held the Middle East hostage for his pan-Arabic delusions, could you at least understand that with Iran on the verge of obtaining them, he would do everything possible to achieve the same? Iran and Iraq are and were racial, religious, and historic arch enemies. Their war in the '80s took a million lives.

The U.S. with it's few allies took care of the Iraqi side of the equation while the world blew diplomatic hot air. The jury is still out as to whether they will step-up to solve the Iranian one, but I think we all know what it will be. It's in their self-interest to keep America hated...the convenient whipping boy....it makes them feel safe enough to know they aren't the primary target.

Maybe when North Korea begins its nuclear testing the world will wake up that it's 2006, and not 1944. "Leaving the world alone" when referring to these regimes has far graver consequences for the future. Anyone wanting to sit around and let them succeed must be childless.

 

[bestpilot]

All this discourse is making me thirsty... Where does it end..

Awwww Yeeeaahhhh! thirstee tooo bro, yeah, da keeboard be smellin like hops and barleee and weigh!


Duuuude! It all freaking ends when da keg is emptee, my brother from another mother!


Flight att be sayin dat stuff be smellin like way bad.

I be sayin, "smellin bad like ole Uppercrusty and ole Ty Guy????????"

f/a "Naw, like smellin like some freakin bad chemicals and stuff."

"Naw we keep goin, cause like I aint watchin da news, and stufff, and I aint eeeven wantin to take this stuff alll serious and stuff, so like see ya in dat L-G-A!"


Naw bro, I be thinkin dat ole conservative be mo mo mo better, based on what dem pilots been told adn stuff. But, like when it be turnin out to be like nuttin hunney, then like maybe we needs to be getting dem flighteees some like freaking guidance and stuff so dey know what they be needin to look fer. yknow like help me help you.....help me.......help you.


Freaking Jerry Freaking McGuire..........classic.

 

[Lear70]

Jesus, Yaak... Were you a history professor or something before joining the aviation world?

Here's a question for ya': since Japan's cessation of hostiliies was lead by their religious leader telling them to quit fighting AFTER we bombed the tee-total ratsh*t out of them, why wouldn't a similar scenario work in the Middle East?

I mean, we don't really have any allies left to speak of, who are we afraid to piss off if we drop not nukes, but tactical air bombs on every single organized city in the country?

Let them know in advance that we're doing it and we'll continue to do it every time there is a terrorist incident, and stay the hell out of their country while bombing them from afar until their religious leaders pick up on the hint or we kill every freakin' one of them.

It would be cheaper, faster, and probably more effective than this Generation X Vietnam scenario that we've woven ourselves into. No-win scenario indeed.

 

[FN FAL]

Why wouldn't a similar scenario work in the Middle East?

In order to attain what? Cheaper oil?

Last I heard, the Middle East Naval Brigadeer Adjutant General still hasn't got their 50 carrier navy that they wanted, nor has their amphibious assault ship program started. So I think the border is safe for now. They haven't come to Boeing or Antonov with purchase orders for strategic bombers yet either.

So tell me again, what is the deal? People want cheap gas and they won't play the game, so we're going to nuke them?

Oh, I get it, untill they buy a bible and show up at the Assembly of God's house, we're going to murderize them? Suits me fine, just who's paying the bill? Your kids and their kids...I'll be long gone by then.

 

[Ty Webb]

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.


.

 

[Lear70]

In order to attain what? Cheaper oil?

As usual, you DELIBERATELY miss my point and try to steer it to some conversational direction YOU want to take.

If you had read Yaak's ENTIRE diatribe (yeah, I know it was long, but still you should try), you would have understood the parallel I was drawing.

Yaak said that, after we dropped the bombs, the Emperor STOPPED HOSTILITIES. His people listened based, not only on fear of more bombings, but because they believed him on a spiritual level. HIS motivations however, were driven by the death and suffering of his people.

SOOO, follow the parallel here, I know it's hard for your feeble mind to grasp, but try anyway: if that kind of overwhelming violence on our part stopped THEIR aggression, why would that not work in the Middle East?

I didn't say jack sh*t about the oil. You did. Don't steer the conversation a different direction based on YOUR misinterpretation of what I said.

I said let's be aggressive and destroy them before they destroy us. They may be doing it in small steps, but a liberty here, a couple hundred or thousand dead there, and their work is done.

Last I heard, the Middle East Naval Brigadeer Adjutant General still hasn't got their 50 carrier navy that they wanted, nor has their amphibious assault ship program started. So I think the border is safe for now. They haven't come to Boeing or Antonov with purchase orders for strategic bombers yet either.

Hmmm... all that they don't have and yet they managed to all but cripple our nation's transportation system for years and instilled fear for generations to come. Imagine what they will be capable of in 20 years if left to continue their aggression. They ARE sending their militant young to the finest universities in Britain and the U.S... You think they're doing that to enrich their own country's education system? ummm... NO.

So tell me again, what is the deal? People want cheap gas and they won't play the game, so we're going to nuke them?

Again, YOU are making this about oil and gas. Not me.

Incidentally, the DEAL is HOW MANY dead from 9/11? Find me a couple of the victims' families and see if they feel like you do about it or if they think bombing the ratsh*t out of them every time they show aggression is a better policy.

Personally, I've never met a bully who backed down to anything but me beating the snot out of him. Same principle.

Oh, I get it, untill they buy a bible and show up at the Assembly of God's house, we're going to murderize them? Suits me fine, just who's paying the bill? Your kids and their kids...I'll be long gone by then.

Again, I didn't make this about religion, YOU did. Try actually READING what I write without adding to it.

You have a really bad habit of stating things people haven't even MENTIONED. Why don't you stick with what I DID say, and don't ASSume something when we haven't said it.

In other words, stick to the facts with your debate. You kind of remind me of a bad politician during a debate who, when backed into a corner, reaches for something that wasn't even said and attacks with it.

 

[BSkin]

I thought that they were doing searches at the gate for this stuff and I do see some of that going on but to have the honor system that you won't buy a bottle once inside security and bring it on is not going to work as demostrated in this example.

Nope, the honor system only works in golf -- sometimes. I highly doubt that they (the gate agents, especially in ATL) are being told to search at the gate. Only thing they are worried about is getting the turn out in the company specified time, or else they get lip service.

 

[CatYaaak]

Here's a question for ya': since Japan's cessation of hostiliies was lead by their religious leader telling them to quit fighting AFTER we bombed the tee-total ratsh*t out of them, why wouldn't a similar scenario work in the Middle East?
quote]

Unfortunately it wouldn't work, simply because the Japanese Emperor was regarded by the populace as a Divine being in the flesh. Until his radio message calling on the nation to stop fighting, most Japanese had never even heard his voice.

OBL and his ilk, on the other hand, are NOT considered Divine by their followers by any means. In fact that would be considered heresy of the worst kind. The various Kings and Emirs in the Middle East have already denounced the extremists as "deviants" and at odds with the teachings of Islam. But those leaders denouncing OBL are considered royalty, not Divine beings like Hirohito, especially by the fanatics who want an excuse to kill someone. They believe they can please their Divine being by NOT following what their leaders say.

If OBL reversed his extremist views on the West tomorrow and called for peace, he would be simply considered a sell-out by his current allies, because that's what his accusation against the Saudi royals has been centered around. He wouldn't be listened to...he'd be marked for death.

Japan's quasi-religion and bushido culture was centered only around Japan, so an atomic a$$-kicking had a focal point, and you only had to change one guy's mind..the Emperor's. If it had been a world-spanning religion based on texts and dogma where any whacko can spring up and "interpret" things in a way that endorses maintaining the fight, we'd still be fighting WW2.

 

[Lear70]

If OBL reversed his extremist views on the West tomorrow and called for peace, he would be simply considered a sell-out by his current allies, because that's what his accusation against the Saudi royals has been centered around. He wouldn't be listened to...he'd be marked for death.

Bummer.

Japan's quasi-religion and bushido culture was centered only around Japan, so an atomic a$$-kicking had a focal point, and you only had to change one guy's mind..the Emperor's. If it had been a world-spanning religion based on texts and dogma where any whacko can spring up and "interpret" things in a way that endorses maintaining the fight, we'd still be fighting WW2.

So what do you think WILL work? We've tried basically everything SHORT of glassing their entire country, including appeasement, and we're STILL getting attacked... Not that I want to create martyrs or become known as the country who chose bombing as the solution to everything, but I don't want my kids to be born, grow up, grow old, and die and we're still fighting this thing and I don't want to convert to Islam either...

Screwed either way, why not try something more direct?