Flyguy330

Yes I read that also - that these deportation flights have been operating on a weekly basis for years. So there's no fuss about the actual fact of deportations. What I would like clarified is if the USAAF aircraft were "refused permission TO LAND" (maybe overhead the airport in Colombia) OR were they refused permission TO TAKE OFF in the first place? It's very important to know this because it completely alters the seriousness of the incident. The fact that they were military flights doesn't make any difference. Military aircraft - of all nations - do hundreds of 'non-military' flight duties around the world every day. Airforce One is a military aircraft (the clue is in the name there). Humanitarian flights are often operated by military aircraft. They file flight plans and require permission. So unless they are involved in an act of war there is no good justification for refusal to allow them operate, much less refuse 'permission to land' at the last minute. The Colombians are at fault here.

We're clearly not getting the full story here from the MSM. They report that the US deportation flights (military aircraft) were refused 'permission to land'. That is not how things work. Those aircraft are required to file a FLIGHT PLAN with Air Traffic Control hours before even taking off. Since they are international flights crossing airspace borders they could have to be filed days in advance. Permission has to be given to cross airspace borders between nations. It's not like a bus, you don't just jump in and drive wherever the hell you like. So, since the flight(s) got airborne, they had filed a flight plan, and been given clearance to depart for a specified landing airport in the destination country. This line that they were 'refused permission to land' implies that they were already IN Colombian airspace (perhaps even on final approach to land) when the prior approval was revoked, for flippant reasons (how would anyone on the ground know if the 'passengers' were being refused permission to go to the toilet for example, and so what!?). 'Refusing permission to land' to an aircraft already on approach to land, without a pressing safety or emergency reason, and having already 'accepted' the flight into the airspace, would be a major breach of aviation law and exceedingly dangerous. Aircraft can't stay airborne indefinitely. They carry fixed fuel amounts calculated on the duration of the flight plus small reserves for forced diversion to a neaby alternate airfield. What did the deportation flight(s) do if refused 'permission to land'? They would want to turnm around and fly home probably. But would they have the fuel for that? Perhaps, only if they had no plan to uplift fuel on the ground in Colombia. Who knows! did the personnel who 'refused permission to land' know the aircrafts fuel status? Or did they ignore the risk, and thereby endanger the lives of all onboard? One option the USAAF pilots would have had was to declare a fuel emergency, and that would give them overriding priority to land. Why not? I wonder if in fact these flights ever got airborne out of the US, and the refusal of 'permission to land' was in fact just a refusal to accept them at the flight planning stage. Will the MSM ever print the facts?

Thanks Treetops - so simple, but no instructions anywhere I could find.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 50/100 My Time 214 seconds  

How do I display a Youtube video in my post?

My Condo in KL refused to approve installation of charging facilities within the covered garage area at the recent AGM. They are going to provide a charging bay in the exterior parking lot. Simple fact is that many people are concerned about EV vehicle fires. Yes, petrol vehicles burn too, but not with the same intensity - fire departments here probably could not cope with an EV fire. Besides that, they weigh two or three times as much as regular IC powered cars, and our building is old (and currently undergoing heavy rehab work for decaying rebar in support structures). I'm all in favour of EV's, if you have a private house, a driveway, and - even better -some solar panels to charge it. For Condo's - the risk to all outweighs the benefit to the few.

I have no desire to befriend or influence any of the types I describe above. I do know a few of them have retired to Phuket, and may be on this forum. They must be sad lonely barstewards. This is the risk you take in fraternising with strangers you meet in anonymous fora, or Phuket sleaze bars.

There's a thread about UK Foreign Minister David Lammy on the 'World News' section of this Forum. It explains how he previously referred to Trump as a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath” in 2018, but has now praised him as 'warm' and 'friendly'. 'Now' (that is) since Trumps recent re-election, and inauguration yesterday. Quite a change of tone. It got me thinking about how people like this can thrive and exist in public life, or in business. They are liars, the weak minded, the schemers and climbers, and the back stabbers. How did a fool and a liar like Lammy become UK Foreign Minister? He is clearly lacking in self-awareness or integrity - he should have resigned his post the moment Trump was elected. But the truth is we've all met people like this in our lives. If you've been an employee in any large organisation you've definitely met some. I worked in such an industry for years, and - the stories I could tell you! There were a few decent people in management, but the vast majority of them were - like Lammy - liars, fakers, exploiters, and incompetents. I witnessed - and felt the fallout - of some absolute travesties of justice, and how people were abused and persecuted for nothing. The whole workforce was subjected to a never ending barrage of attacks aimed at wrecking our working conditions and salaries. This in a very high profile industry with huge public safety responsibility. At least one of those thugs has been so succesful in climbing the greasy pole that he now holds a post in a global regulatory branch of the industry. You'd know his name if I quoted it. I happened to meet one of his less succesful climbers recently. This minor thug (now attempting character reform in his retirement) used to count the first thug as his best (perhaps ONLY) mate. He told me that his old buddy (who had originally elevated him within our organisation) now ignores him at industry social functions if they meet. He seems to feel some remorse now for his previous behaviour - now that his only friend has abandoned him. Perhaps some of the people reading this are of the very same ilk that I speak of here. Billynomates, running away from their evil past and hiding out in 'beautiful tropical Thailand'. A curse on you all. And Lammy too. You are all Satans little helpers and destroy the world for the rest of us.

Cold Fusion is back. https://youtu.be/PGgovWTBoWY?si=3nVnsN4SxeYG3cfa

Very rousing speech for sure. When he talked about the Panama Canal he raised his voice and yelled '...and we're TAKING IT BACK!'. Hmmm...will there be blood?

I just stumbled on this thread and it's a weird coincidence that I happened to be reading up on the etymology of the word 'Indian' today (in reference to 'Red Indians'). The term 'Indian' is apparently not 'PC' nowadays, and instead 'Native American' is the proper term. My reading led to a monologue by George Carlin (US comedian, deceased), wherein he argued that the term 'Indian' is in fact right and proper. Ye see the 'non PC'ness of the term 'Indian' lies in the popular belief that when Chris Columbus set off west out of Spain he expected he'd find a route to East Asia (India in particular) rather than a whole new continent. Many historians now consider that nomenclature totally wrong, because (they say) India was not known as 'India' in 1492, but rather as Hindustan. So Columbus couldn't have named it 'India' nor its denizens 'Indians'. Except maybe for a laugh. Carlin said that the first 'tribe' Columbus encountered on making landfall were such nice people, thriving so happily in nature (according to Columbus' memoirs), that he dubbed them 'People of God', or 'People in God'. That translates into Spanish as 'Gente in dios'. In Dios. Get it? Not an insult or misnomer - but a noble handle. Then he proceeded to wipe them out. But apparently many etymologists say that's rubbish too. The history of the word remains in dispute.

Fascinating. Is it France? Someone else guessed Italy, but I think its in France. You mentioned 'Commune' which is French for local administrative unit. Does your place have any links to Napoleon? I'm a big fan of the history of that period, and have been listening to an EXCELLENT podcast about L'Empereur for the last 2 years. It's called 'The Age of Napoleon'. Highly recommended to anyone who has the spare time on their hands - I listen to it while I work out. Regarding the restoration care you've taken - I appreciate that very much, well done. I spend a lot of my time in Penang and enjoy the old town very much, but especially one little boutique hotel there called 'The Seven Terraces'. It is an old colonial building - a line of shophouses - which were in a state of dereliction until it was bought by a local man - Chris Ong - who had the money and dedication to do with it what you've done with your castle. You'd like him I'm sure. The time and care he has taken to restore it, using original Peranakan style decor and materials. The result is amazing, and admirable. He went on to set up another boutique hotel, called Muntri Mews. Same care and attention given to the restoration. I've stayed in both several times and really love them - they do have mod-cons, so its not a hardship. Its a trip back in time. Check out this Youtube video: https://youtu.be/Z8tB4MKIgiw?si=TQwLaEeFaCEYScQD

Leave it to me please 😚

From the BBC "Spain is planning to impose a tax of up to 100% on the value of properties bought by non-residents from countries outside the EU, such as the UK. Announcing the move, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the "unprecedented" measure was necessary to meet the country's housing emergency. "The West faces a decisive challenge: To not become a society divided into two classes, the rich landlords and poor tenants," he said. Non-EU residents bought 27,000 properties in Spain in 2023, he told an economic forum in Madrid, "not to live in" but "to make money from them". "Which, in the context of shortage that we are in, [we] obviously cannot allow," he added. The move was designed to prioritise available homes for residents, the Spanish prime minister said. Sánchez did not provide any more details on how the tax would work nor a timeline for presenting it to parliament for approval, where he has often struggled to gather sufficient votes to pass legislation. His office described the proposed measure as a way to limit the purchase of homes by "non-resident non-EU foreigners". It added: "The tax burden that they will have to pay in case of purchase will be increased up to 100% of the value of the property, in line with countries such as Denmark and Canada."

You are one argumentative bugger! RSD1 has given plenty of useful info on this thread. Back off.

Broke the door down?

Regarding this 'Democracy v Republic' debate. The US is BOTH. Democracy is the political process, the Republic is the outcome. The line that they're 'different' keeps getting trotted out anytime their nutty electoral system (the College) gets criticised. The American Republic = nutty Electoral College system, that's all. And that's an archaic throwback to their post revolutionary trauma. The seeds of disaster lie in the US being a strictly Two Party system, which tends to divide the country down the middle and results in constant warring. When a sane alternative voice attempts to be heard, they just get swept away, kicked to the gutter, because the Big Money is focussed on the two main factions to the detriment of all else, and NOBODY wins an American election without Big Money. That's why Elon is their God..

Nah, the reason for the huge student support of anti-war protests was the US introduced conscription and all the kiddies were afraid they'd be sent off to die in a fight they had absolutely no interest in. Remember the catchphrase/ Hell NO we won't go! No more conscription - no big protests. The Gaza protests were minuscule and were stomped on fast. No Yankee skin in the game.

One more thing while I'm on it. Finance companies like Revolut (and Banks in general) which ignore customers losses through their platform, make millions, or even billions in profits through those platforms. Imagine having a service where you collect a percentage on every single small purchase using your card. Millions of transactions every day. Then there's the interest on overdue accounts - the maximum APR on some cards gors as high as 27%!! The amounts are staggering! And yet, those shysters can wash their hands of all responsibility when a customer is scammed! They make little enough effort to prevent fraud (as is evidenced by the frequency with which it happens), and they are even LESS likely to take responsibility for losses and reimburse victims. What about a 'fraud insurance system' for their customers? Nah - just rake in the profits and 5hit on the victims. Thankfully some countries are starting to wake up to this and are now beginning to legislate that these providors bolster their security systems and recompense victims losses. Shame on the legislators for leaving it so long.

That's a pretty ignorant comment, and I sincerely hope it comes back to haunt you one day. I began the process of opening a Revolut account many months ago. I already use WISE and never had a problem with them, but I thought I'd try Revolut too. Just after setting up the account - and before I put any money in it - I started seeing newspaper stories from home about scams on Revolut customers. The details did not indicate the victims had to be fools or financially naiive, but subjects of sophisticated scams that almost anyone in their particular circumstances could have fallen for. But what was really shocking was how Revolut handled the complaints. They simply dismissed the victims with stock letters. Some of the stories were taken up by the 'Your Money' section of a national newspaper. The journos made direct contact with Revolut HQ (virtually impossible for individual victims) and they attempted to convince Revolut that they had some responsibility to their customers. The response was the same stone walling the victims had received. Normally companies 'back down' in the face of direct approaches from major newspapers - the bad publicity isn't worth it, and even though they don't often 'accept full responsibility' you'll often see them wriggle out with a smarmy 'but out of goodwill we are going to rectify this customers loss' or whatever. But no, not Revolut. They basically told the newspaper 'very sorry for their loss, but tough titty, now PFO'. As a result of reading several of these stories over a two/three week period I changed my mind about Revolut and never put any money in. Then I started getting emails from them. 'We are going to 'freeze' your account in 48hrs if you don't put in money'. I ignored it. A week later another email - 'We are going to 'freeze' your account in 48hrs if you don't put in money'. Huh?? I thought it was frozen already? I ignored. Another week passed, then the same email. Now I was just junking them. They stopped for a while. Then I got another one - 'If you don't fund your account within 48hrs we will CLOSE it!'. Ignored. Then the same again a few days later. This time I wrote to them and told them - YES PLEASE CLOSE IT! They wrote back (another stock letter) saying "Unfortunately we cannot close your account (lol!) until you fill up the attached Account Closing form' - a form which required inputting of lots personal details which I had no time for or interest in. I ignored it. I still get the odd threat that they 'are closing' my account. What a joke of a company. Stay well away folks.

No I'm afraid I disagree and you're assuming the worst. There's a song I like, called 'Fight For Your Right - To PAAAAARTY!'. Do you think that means attack the Capitol Building? Or even some College Dorm? When a politician goes on TV and says he wants to fight for equal pay - do you take that to mean he's going to start a bombing campaign? When they tried to blow Trumps brains out he screamed 'Fight! Fight! Fight!'. Who do you think he meant? HOW do you think he meant it? OK, don't answer - I know your answer. But my take on that is he was asking his supporters to never give up, never surrender, even if they blew his brains out.

You have a very appropriate name then Impulse! 😄

Ever been to Provincetown? They have wood shingles on every roof, and walls too. Though I know their firestorm risk is lower I still wonder about their home fire insurance rates.

Top post there, from a knowledgeable poster. "Unfortunately, what is ignored is that most damage that occurs in residential areas after a strong earthquake is resulting fire. " Good point.

So, we've all seen the destruction in California caused by the wildfires. Whole neighbourhoods literally levelled. Not a brick standing on top of another - except for the bizarre sight of brick chimney breasts rising up out of the flattened ash vista. They're all so shocked. The houses in the neighbourhood cost Millions! Did I say houses? Man - I mean MANSIONS!! CELEBRITY MANSIONS! All evaporated. Atomised. Gone. How could it happen?!? It's so SHOCKING! Well, if you've ever seen a building being erected in the US (besides skyscrapers) you'll probably have gazed in wonder at how they're built. All they consist of is wood. Wood frame. Wood exterior cladding. Wood roofs, often with wood shingles for tiling. Cardboard interiors - they call 'sheet rock', which is NOT rock. It's plasterboard, and easily lit up. So when you have hundreds of MANSIONS (lol) crammed together in dry forest areas, and a spark ignites one - the whole lot can quickly go up too. And wood likes to burn. And when it burns it burns completely. And all that's left is ash. As we can see. There's a pic floating around of the Malibu beachfront, with ONE house standing, and all the next door multi million dollar 'mansions' burned to ash. A MIRACLE! they say.... No it's not. It's basic common sense. It's the only house in the row made of concrete. Why do Americans build these 5hitty structures? How can the 'building code' allow WOOD structures to be built in high fire risk zones? How can a pile of matchwood be called a MANSION, and carry million dollar valuations? All fake, like so much else about the USofA.