Erdogan: We can purchase 3-5 Nuclear warheads from Pakistan

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 01:29

airforces_freak wrote:
Long article




This is what you said:
P.S. why is the US purchasing turkish designed and produced stand-off cruise missiles if Turkish technology does not impress?


The article doesn't say that at all. It says Lockheed is helping Rocketstan produce and market it. There is zero evidence of an order by the US DOD. Read more carefully next time.

Operators

Turkey
The SOM missile has been integrated for use on TAI produced Turkish Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon (CCIP and Block 50) and Turkish Air Force operated F-4E 2020.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOM_(missile)
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 02:42

airforces_freak wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:[ The US is talking about ID cards and registration for Muslims citizens and a ban on Muslim tourists.


7
Utterly wrong. Please prove this claim.


What happened to the right to freedom of religion and press?


It still exists and is protected with the first amendment, you are simply as all things here, clueless

When did media/press companies become a constitutional arm of Government? Are they not for profit corporations?


The US has public and private news.


It only exists for non-Muslims.

Here just proved: http://time.com/4578006/reince-priebus- ... -registry/


Your source there says they are not doing that, and then specifically says they are not doing it based on religion. Read the whole article genius.

Did you actually read it?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 02:51

airforces_freak wrote:
Everything I said and which you guys laughed at on this forum has occurred so I don't understand how you can assert that I am misleading the people on here.



We just caught you in another set of lies. Lies specifically misleading people, as the time article above. You actually proved yourself wrong with that. You've been wrong several times. You being correct on occasion, does not mean "everything I said... has occured"

Really? Really? You realize no one here believes you and the only reason you haven't been banned is the mods have yet to get around to it?

You have zero credibility. Your Time article above just hilights your total ignorance. Muslims aren't being singled out at all, your article even says that.
Choose Crews
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 03:55

XanderCrews wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:
Everything I said and which you guys laughed at on this forum has occurred so I don't understand how you can assert that I am misleading the people on here.



We just caught you in another set of lies. Lies specifically misleading people, as the time article above. You actually proved yourself wrong with that. You've been wrong several times. You being correct on occasion, does not mean "everything I said... has occured"

Really? Really? You realize no one here believes you and the only reason you haven't been banned is the mods have yet to get around to it?

You have zero credibility. Your Time article above just hilights your total ignorance. Muslims aren't being singled out at all, your article even says that.


Cite everything here which you assert is a lie.
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 04:02

XanderCrews wrote:
Your source there says they are not doing that, and then specifically says they are not doing it based on religion. Read the whole article genius.

Did you actually read it?


Do you deny this too?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 04:39

airforces_freak wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Your source there says they are not doing that, and then specifically says they are not doing it based on religion. Read the whole article genius.

Did you actually read it?


Do you deny this too?


Yep. BecausE speech does not equal law.

Apparently where you are from saying something makes it so. Explains a lot about your posts actually.

Donald trump hasn't even been sworn in yet, so how is he making policy of any kind?

Not even airport guards here are allowed to profile based on religion, let alone massive federal laws

Just because country Is turning into a 2 bit dictatorship, doesn't mean everyone else is, and it sure as hell can't be used as an excuse for Turkey's descent
Choose Crews
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 08:53

Perhaps you should go back and read my post. I used the word "discussing" sanctions against Muslims. It is your President-elect talking about singling out an entire religion not some nobody.
Last edited by airforces_freak on 21 Nov 2016, 15:11, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 12:52

Will be enough? Enough for what? Did he explain or some Turkish analyst?
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 15:08

milosh wrote:Will be enough? Enough for what? Did he explain or some Turkish analyst?


To act as an independent nuclear umbrella and deterrent was what he said.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 15:17

airforces_freak wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read my post. I used the word "discussing" sanctions against Muslims. It is your President-elect talking about singling out an entire religion not some nobody.



People have been discussing that for decades, it doesn't mean the 1st amendment no longer applies. In fact people being able to discuss it shows its still going strong.

Also you are an idiot
Choose Crews
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 15:32

XanderCrews wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read my post. I used the word "discussing" sanctions against Muslims. It is your President-elect talking about singling out an entire religion not some nobody.



People have been discussing that for decades, it doesn't mean the 1st amendment no longer applies. In fact people being able to discuss it shows its still going strong.

Also you are an idiot


The First Amendment does not protect Muslims against Trumps plans. The First Amendment protects 2 things:
The free exercise of religion within limits;
Prohibits the State from creating a religion;

In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878) the Supreme Court interpreted "Freedom of religion" as meaning the freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order."

Trump hence does not need to seek to amend the US Constitution to restrict the free movement of Muslims in the US. In fact, appointments made by him to the Supreme Court could easily interpret the First Amendment as not precluding the State from restricting the free movement of Muslims on the basis of National Security and it is precisely what the Trump team are planning.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 17:03

airforces_freak wrote:
milosh wrote:Will be enough? Enough for what? Did he explain or some Turkish analyst?


To act as an independent nuclear umbrella and deterrent was what he said.


Well he said that but it doesnt make any sense. There are only three nuclear powers which had some kind of conflict with Turkey in recent history and all three have vastily superior nuclear aresenal (numercial and means to deliever) and capability to protect its self from attack.

To me that is Trump like statement, very stupid promise to create happy delirium among supporters.

Look we have nukes now you are frak Israel/America/Russia :D
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 17:36

airforces_freak wrote:Trump hence does not need to seek to amend the US Constitution to restrict the free movement of Muslims in the US. In fact, appointments made by him to the Supreme Court could easily interpret the First Amendment as not precluding the State from restricting the free movement of Muslims on the basis of National Security and it is precisely what the Trump team are planning.


Image

There only thing that has been seriously talked about is restricting the granting if visas from countries that have a current terrorist problem since there is no real way to vet those visa applications.

Trying to restrict movement of Muslims inside this contrary, let alone Muslim citizens, will run afoul of several privacy, equal protection, and other rights & protections that are well founded in our Constitution.

Stop fear-mongering.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 18:42

airforces_freak wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:Perhaps you should go back and read my post. I used the word "discussing" sanctions against Muslims. It is your President-elect talking about singling out an entire religion not some nobody.



People have been discussing that for decades, it doesn't mean the 1st amendment no longer applies. In fact people being able to discuss it shows its still going strong.

Also you are an idiot


The First Amendment does not protect Muslims against Trumps plans. The First Amendment protects 2 things:
The free exercise of religion within limits;
Prohibits the State from creating a religion;

In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878) the Supreme Court interpreted "Freedom of religion" as meaning the freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order."

Trump hence does not need to seek to amend the US Constitution to restrict the free movement of Muslims in the US. In fact, appointments made by him to the Supreme Court could easily interpret the First Amendment as not precluding the State from restricting the free movement of Muslims on the basis of National Security and it is precisely what the Trump team are planning.


Nope!

Guess again!
Last edited by XanderCrews on 21 Nov 2016, 18:46, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 18:45

milosh wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:
milosh wrote:Will be enough? Enough for what? Did he explain or some Turkish analyst?


To act as an independent nuclear umbrella and deterrent was what he said.


Well he said that but it doesnt make any sense. There are only three nuclear powers which had some kind of conflict with Turkey in recent history and all three have vastily superior nuclear aresenal (numercial and means to deliever) and capability to protect its self from attack.

To me that is Trump like statement, very stupid promise to create happy delirium among supporters.

Look we have nukes now you are frak Israel/America/Russia :D


Yep. And all those countries with the superior arsenals are going to keep careful track of turkeys pathetic arsenal at all times. It's not hard to keep track of all 5 of turkeys nukes.

But in air force freak world, a politician talking equals instant reality.

So you are dealing with a 12 year old here
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests