What is airplane food like in the US?
IMO, nothing suspect about spending a lot of time in the bathroom after that stuff . . .
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Woman Profiled on 9/11
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
What is airplane food like in the US?
IMO, nothing suspect about spending a lot of time in the bathroom after that stuff . . .
- 1,569 architects and engineers
- 220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement and 'civil servants'
- 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
- 400+ Professors
- 400+ Medical Professionals...
...plus plenty of Lawyers, Firefighters, Media Professionals, Scientists, Researchers and (in all likelihood) millions of ordinary Netizens around the world who've also examined the avalanche of evidence and went waitaminute...
BTW: Not the guv per se. The PNAC "crazies" + members of at least 2 domestic and 3 foreign agencies + their occasionally mutual assets.
Yeah, eating Burger King in the terminal, I can see why one would take their time in the latrine.
The running joke with my family when we fly and hear the notice about "random searches" is someone inevitably calls me Mr Random. Funny, I have yet to be surprised with NOT getting pulled aside and searched at any American Airport, even domestic flights with my wife and son..
I don't wonder why... I don't wonder why the scanner ALWAYS beeps when I walk through it even though I've got no metal objects on my person.. I am usually wearing jogging pants, socks and a tshirt when I fly..
I don't wonder why... I don't wonder why the scanner ALWAYS beeps when I walk through it even though I've got no metal objects on my person.. I am usually wearing jogging pants, socks and a tshirt when I fly..
I got pulled for a random search on my way home from Maui. I thought, "oh no, what am I in for?" being that it was only my second flight. They took some little card, rubbed it on my luggage, put it some machine, and cleared me in about 90 seconds.
And drugs.
No, we'd be on page 15 by now. Or it would already be closed.
Chebass88 said:
#1: that's a pretty big IF..
#2: this thread isn't about injustice.. (Quotes left off on purpose)
That's not really the point I was trying to make (by tiptoe-ing around the "no politics" rule).
I'll give it another go. The definition of terrorist depends on who and where you are. Your "terrorist" is someone else's "freedom fighter" and yet another's "insurgent" or "militant" or "criminal gang" or even "armed force". So saying that Christians wouldn't make the top 3 in terms of terrorist fatalities really is a non-starter, as it is a subjective analysis that may not be shared by all (mind you being in the top anything of terrorist fatalities is nothing to be proud of).
D
I understand what you are saying now. I'd suggest that the term "freedom fighter" would apply to someone trying to free their own land. Osama Bin Laden may have been a freedom fighter when he was trying to drive the Russians out of Afganastan, but when he masterminded the 9/11 attacks he stopped being a freedom fighter and became a terrorist. I'd suggest that a freedom fighter stops being a freedom fighter and starts being a terrorist when he/she kills non-combatants, women, children, old people, or straps on bombs and blows up marketplaces, or flies jet airliners into buildings.
To your point, during the recent Arab spring we have seen Mubarek and Quadaffi (excuse my spelling) decry the "freedom fighters" in their respective countries as terrorists. So your point is well taken.
I used it on purpose because it is stupid and not even a real word, yet used recently by the parrot media.
I sincerely apologize for upsetting you. 
Bad. Actually, the first thing I thought when I saw the news report is that those F16s could have been dispatched for a taco bell related false alarm.
No.
If it had been a white male seated next to the two "suspicious" Indian men would they have even been detained?
Terrorism is merely a TACTIC - a style of warfare. Freedom fighters can use terrorism, official government militaries carrying out orders can use terrorism, etc.
Nice wording. I felt apt to respond regarding a particular war the US was involved in years ago, but thought it would be too inflammatory.
D
I would suggest that terrorisim is well outside the bounds of warfare... as defined by Sun Tzu, US Grant, RE Lee, George Patton, or any RESPECTED warfighter, past or present.
Terrorism is blood lust, vengance, hatred personified and transformed into an act. Those who practice it try to legimitize it as a tactic of war.
Yet you will find most governments have individuals or organisations that operate outwith those "respected" rules of warfare or support known terrorist organisations as "freedom fighters".
But what are the bounds of warfare? The Germans developed "Total War", the targetting of civillian populations to demoralize the enemy in WWI. It was continued by all sides in WWII. Carpet bombing in Indo-China, white phosphorous in Gazza, even Sherman's March to the Sea had more than a whiff of "demoralize the enemy" rather than the "surgical strike" to only eliminate military targets.
If it was the old-style conflict of this country vs. that country, it would be a lot easier to define, but today it's these (occasional) countries vs. that amorphous group over there, or over there, or somewhere else entirely. We can't call them an army, we can't identify them by their uniforms, they don't use tanks, ships or warplanes. They do not have a command structure that we recognize. So we call them terrorists, because we don't have another suitable word for them (not a printable one, anyway). But they do not see themselves as terrorists, and neither do those who support them.
I don't think that "blood lust" really enters into it anymore than it does with "regular" soldiers. If it did, they would be easier to kill. And they do see themselves as soldiers. From their point of view they are fighting a war with the tools available to them, and if those tools happen to be an IED, a backpack bomb or a passenger jet, then so be it.
If war is the continuation of politics by other means then "terrorism" is the continuation of war by other means.
I think that our problem is that our tools are too blunt to fight this war properly. A carrier strike force is a wonderful projection of power against another country (like a cold-war adversary), but we are not fighting countries anymore - and the biggest strike-force in the world can't stop a suicide bomber in a crowded market.
