Re: Dannykins' same tired old Stalinist lies and bull***

"Dan Christensen" <dchris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180240810.602692.84110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip AND LYING YOUR ASS OFF COMRADE]

"The Cessna Skymaster is a twin-engine civil utility aircraft built in
a push-pull configuration."

Yes Danny now look at the photo. The eninges [note the plural,
Kennykins!] are mounted opposed, push
pull, one in front and one in rear.

Two engines, like I said.

Okay. You are speaking of the Skymaster. I was thinking of a different
plane with opposed mounted props and a single engine.

But note it is a "CIVIL UTILITY" aircraft NOT a combat fighter plane as
you TRIED to suggest.

Also from YOUR SOURCE:

Primary user Private individuals and organizations

In 1994 the Cuban exile group Hermanos al Rescate (Brothers to the
Rescue)
used Skymasters to drop life-saving supplies to rafters attempting to
cross
the Florida Straits to defect from Cuba. They were also used to violate
Cuban airspace, flying over Cuba's capital, Havana, and dropping leaflets
with anti-Castro propaganda. They chose Skymasters because they were
easier
to control at slow speeds than conventional twin-engine aircraft. One
plane
contacted the water (it is difficult to judge altitude over relatively
calm
water), damaging the landing gear doors and the nose propeller. Since the
rear engine is mounted higher, it wasn't damaged and the aircraft was
able
to return to Florida to make a belly landing.

OOOOO dropping LEAFLETS over Havana - OOOOOOOOOO!!!!! OOOOOOOOOO!
OOOOO!

In a manner that even the FAA later described as reckless or careless
"so as to endanger the life and property" of others. The usual
niceties of warnings, etc. did not seem to work on these yahoos. They
were shown on US TV roaring over Havana rooftops, being followed above
by Cuban fighter jet that took no action.

Oh Danny - endanger lives? Dropping leaflets on Havana? Yeah - the
danger would be if State Security saw you reading one of them you might get
shot or "detained" for being countter-revolutionary. Say, tlel me, exactly
WHY is being counter revolutionary such a serious crime? Should the U.S.
make oppsoition to Bush a crime? In that case I am in deep ***.

And believe it or not, Kennykins, even Cuba has the right to require
permission to enter their airspace, for safety reasons if nothing
else.

Danny here is a clue, it applies to every country. Even the U.S.. But WE
don't go around shooting down UNARMED CIVIL airplanes. Hell Danny as I said,
we didn't even shoot down ARMED Soviet airplanes that overflew the U.S. The
ONLY countries that make a habit of shooting down UNARMED CIVILIAN aircraft
have been Marxist countries.

First of all, the BTR planes STILL had US Air Force markings and had
been used to drop proganda leaflets on Havana. Thus, they were not
even technically civilian aircraft.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/buchner-testimony.htm
The markings were barely visable. They were bought as SURPLUS.
Essentially junked planes.
So you say. They should have painted over the markings, "barely
visible"
or not.

SHOULD HAVE? Says who? YOU?

They should have painted over the military markings if they didn't
want to be taken for enemy military aircraft. It is only common sense.

Common sense? Whose? Yours? Should have? Says WHO? Enemy aircraft?
Is the U.S. at war with Cuba? Puerto Rico? Maybe Jamaica?
Aruba? Domican Republic? Haiti? Here's another problem DIP*** - the MiG
pilots never saw the planes. They were MILES away. They never saw any
markings. So cut your happy bull*** you keep MAKING UP. They fired AIR TO
AIR MISSILES from almost 5 miles away.Even giving the Cuban pilots better
than 20/20 vision (SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER) you can't read markings from 5
miles off. Maybe YOU can Danny.. But then you are prone to LIE.

This kind of plane was used by the USAF for forward air control,
observation and, interestingly, for psychological warfare. An armed
military version was also produced for the Rhodesian Air Force. So,
it
could concievably even be used as an effective gun platform to
attack
people on the ground.
What did I say COMRADE? I said they were UNARMED OBSERVATION
aircraft
in
Viet Nam NOT as YOU tried to claim "a COMBAT" aircraft.
And capable of being converted to a serviceable gun platform as it was
in the case of the Rhodesian Lynx. Again, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster

HOWEVER - the FACTS are, despite your little foray into fiction -
that
the Skymasters used in Viet Nam did NOT have "hardpoints" and were
UNARMED
observation aircraft. AND COMRADE - none of the Skymasters flown by BTR
had
armaments nor were capable of being armed.

[snip AND LIE YOUR ASS OFF]

There were most certainly capable of being converted to platforms for
machine guns and other weapons -- if even only to open the doors and
shoot at people on the ground with handheld weapons. In Rhodesia,
several makes and models of civilian aircraft were in fact converted
for light ground attack purposes. They also made use of a couple of
surplus Skymasters from the USAF, of the kind used in Vietnam. (see
link in previously posting).

They were also most certainly capable of being converted to interstellar
star ships Danny, or airborne bordellos. The problem with your psychotic
rants, Danny boy, is that THEY WERE NOT! The U.S. knew that, Cuba KNEW that.
BTR got NONE of their planes from Rhodesia. NONE ever had arms, NONE ever
carried arms. There was NO shooting of even a cap piston from a BTR plane.
Danny you keep TRYING and TRYING and TRYING and TRYING and TRYING to whine
about the FAC T that the BTR skymasters were old surplus U.S. military
airplanes they bought cheap. HOWEVER yourt STUPID implication is that these
were some "SECRET" jet powered Supersonic dogfighting combat planes to use
in a sinster attack on Cuba is just one more of your psychotic delusions and
your typical propaganda bull***. They were just two LITTLE - UNARMED
civilian airplanes. You can TRY all you want to make them into battleships
of the air, but the more you try the more the reader must conclude your
mental illness is getting worse Comrade.

They had US military insignia and were, at the very least, engaged in
psyops against the Cuban government [propaganda leaflet drops]. And
they were capable of being converted to platforms for machine guns and
other weapons. Cuban authorities could not continue to allow such
aircraft piloted by known enemies to enter the country at will.

BARELY legible from the Viet Nam era 30 years before. BUT had freshly
painted CIVILIAN ID.

[snip AND LIE LIE LIE LIE

So, why didn't they paint over the old markings? Did they run out of
paint??? Get real, Kennykins -- we are not talking about honest people
here.

You know Danny, I don't have a real answer for that. I'd say probably
because they couldn't afford to strip the planes and repaint them.. I'm not
even sure that they OWN the planes or they lease them from some company.
YOU are the one who claims to have ALL the answers. I don't. I think they
may have concluded that it really didn't make any difference. They were
UNARMED civilian aircraft and the BTR logo WAS on the planes prominently.

Again, from an opinion piece originally published in the Miami Herald:
"What if the table were turned? Suppose that a known enemy from abroad
was to enter U.S. airspace in a small private plane heading toward
Washington, D.C. As several 'administration officials' told The
Washington Post, such an intruder is likely to be shot down quickly
over water before it enters the United States because shooting down
the plane over a populated area would create 'significant risks to
large numbers of innocent bystanders.'"

Danny - IF that enemy were flying little UNARMED civilian planes, and
the WORTS that "ENBEMY" had dome was to dop some anti-Bush leaflets over
Washington - - - I'd say shooting the planes down would be a criminal
act.
Danny the tables WERE turned on 9-11. We have had close calls since and
managed NOT to blow civilian planes out of the sky yet. Hell during the
cold
war when Soviet BOOMBERS flew over American CITIES - we didn't shoot them
down.

Bull***! No Soviet bombers ever flew over American cities. US and
Soviet aircraft regularly probed the defensive perimeters of the other
side. And they were routinely escorted away by fighters of that side
without incident. There was never any buzzing of cities by enemy
aircraft as in the case of the BTR (see above). Such aircraft would
most certainly have been shot down.

Want to bet your testicles on that Danny boy? Did I say they were
"BUZZING" American cities or that they overflewAmerican cities? Christensen
do you work on being this stupid or is it genetic? There were SEVERAL
incursions of American airspace by Soviet aircraft that included flying over
cities in Alaska and even one over a city on the U.S. east coast. Yes
generally they were met by American fighters, but NOT ALWAYS. Maybve you
MISSED the shock of a Cuban MiG being landed at a U.S. airfield and NOBODY
in the U.S. knew about it till they saw the RED STAR on the tail as it
taxied. Christensen you are just so TOATALLY full of ***... Really man.
Just absolutely fullof ***.

But thanks for at least confirming that Soviet aircraft HAVE strayed
over U.S. airspace (remember dip*** WE only claim THREE MILES) and we never
fired a shot at them. And THOSE were WARPLANES not some shitting little
CESSNA type of unarmed civilian plane.

Cutting through the *** here. The point lurking in the dense brown fog
of Stalinist propaganda, is that IF Cuba were a free country and IF average
Cuban civilians could own private aircraft - and IF one flew over Miami
calling President Bush a dickhead and asking the American people to rise up
against him, the planes would NOT be shot down. Nor would they in MOST of
the world. ALL of the civilized world. You have to look for a good old
dictatorship, like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and a few others.




.