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.