Nothing more yet
1 posted on
01/02/2004 7:44:30 PM PST by
hadrian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: hadrian
Let me see...what would Ronald Reagan do here?
41 posted on
01/02/2004 8:14:25 PM PST by
The Duke
To: hadrian
To paraphrase poor Winston Churchill who must be turning over in his grave: Never have so few run so quickly from such nothing.
44 posted on
01/02/2004 8:21:38 PM PST by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom!)
To: hadrian
Why are we not surprised.
No are WE amused!
Sheesh.
I thought the French had a monopoloy on cowardice on that side of the Atlantic.
47 posted on
01/02/2004 8:25:17 PM PST by
Quix
(Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
To: hadrian
militant wimps, will wonders never cease?
50 posted on
01/02/2004 8:33:14 PM PST by
ahadams2
To: hadrian
Why does this not surprise me?
52 posted on
01/02/2004 8:41:22 PM PST by
ScoJoe
To: hadrian
Looks like US Carriers will have to add a few new flights.
56 posted on
01/02/2004 8:51:05 PM PST by
Mike Darancette
(Proud member - Neoconservative Power Vortex)
To: hadrian
Frankly, what else can Bush and Ridge do? They have three choices. Come down hard on everything suspicious, or ruffle some feathers but don't inconvenience anyone, or do nothing and laugh at the threats. No matter what happens, only the first one will clear them of accusations of not trying to protect the country.
The problem, of course, that results from taking this hard line, for which I bless them, is the same one that confronted Chicken Little. Eventually no one will believe that the sky could really fall.
But it could. We saw it fall on 9/11 and it could happen again.
57 posted on
01/02/2004 8:51:48 PM PST by
Yaelle
To: hadrian
There is another way to look at it. They supposedly have specific intel that a certain individual on the flight might be a terrorist. Yet they are going to let him board, but place an armed man on the plane to shoot him if he trips on his way to the restroom.
If I were the pilot under the circumstances, I would cancel the flight.
69 posted on
01/02/2004 9:33:56 PM PST by
marron
To: hadrian
Our response is 100% right on. No armed marshalls = no landing priveledges. Way to go GW!
71 posted on
01/02/2004 9:51:31 PM PST by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
("...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
To: hadrian
Haven't gotten through all the thread yet, so maybe this has been suggested:
Maybe the pilots aren't scared of armed marshalls, but they are simply using this stated priciple to avoid working.
Or, a more frightening scenario: What if they actually don't fear the armed marshalls, but it makes for a convenient excuse? What if the pilots themselves are so convinced that a terrorist plot is in the works that they themselves are too afraid to fly, DESPITE armed marshalls on board? Wouldn't that be a doozy? If an armed marshall has been assigned to a particular flight, there is plenty of cause to be concerned about that particular flight. Object to the armed marshall, don't fly, avoid what appears to be a higher risk flight!
75 posted on
01/02/2004 9:58:47 PM PST by
bluefish
To: hadrian
Plaudits to BA for decreasing airspace congestion over our major airports.
77 posted on
01/02/2004 10:02:21 PM PST by
HardStarboard
(Dump Wesley Clark.....he worries me as much as Hillary!)
To: hadrian
81 posted on
01/02/2004 10:12:36 PM PST by
LayoutGuru2
(Call me paranoid but finding '/*' inside this comment makes me suspicious)
To: hadrian; Travis McGee; Squantos
Is this the same gene pool that once owned more of the world than anyone before or since and generally left places better than they found them?
If not, then where did those Brits run off to?
Don't anybody say "here"...we are on the same slope just lagging a bit Thank God.
88 posted on
01/02/2004 10:54:58 PM PST by
wardaddy
("either the arabs are at your throat, or at your feet")
To: hadrian
Nonsense. This is just the media picking up on a story which broke the week before. The Unions are involved in discussions. Just because it is British Airways doesn't mean that all the pilots are British!
95 posted on
01/03/2004 2:34:39 AM PST by
Tommyjo
To: hadrian
Who has the NYT schadenfreude ping list?
97 posted on
01/03/2004 4:23:55 AM PST by
steveegg
(Free Republic - $30/month. Broadband - $45/month. Seeing the DemonRATS out of issues - priceless)
To: hadrian
*coughbloodyfreakinstupidcough* first the french, now the brits, whos next? canada?
102 posted on
01/03/2004 8:45:26 AM PST by
omega_c
To: hadrian
Only cowards, fools and criminals are afraid of good men with guns.
109 posted on
01/03/2004 9:12:06 AM PST by
Search4Truth
(When a man lies he murders some part of the world.)
To: hadrian
If this is true, this has to be the first nominiees for stupid-employee-of-the-year. Then again doesn't BA get gov. subsidies?
To: hadrian
Move over BA pilots.. we'll fly the planes.
123 posted on
01/06/2004 4:43:31 PM PST by
alameda
(alameda)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson