It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bokinsmowl
they're talking about acceptable loss. if you were the last line of defense and your weapons went out, would you sacrafice yourself for the good of the country? they're not recommending it and they're definitely not implementing it as an active strategy.
its the same question that has been asked time and time again... WILL YOU DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?
Pilots and commanders had to consider what they would do in a worst case scenario where they had a Taleban or al-Qaeda commander in their sights and found themselves out of ammunition or suffered a weapons failure.
Originally posted by Fang
I'm not sure they were teaching suicide attacks. As I have said the notion of crashing a plane onto a Taliban leaders truck is plain daft. But ramming a Hi-jacked plane heading for a city? As I said earlier, The Royal Flying Corp had expected it's pilots to ram Zeppelins in WW1.
"But there's a very real difference between somebody saying, 'I'm going to make a personal decision to sacrifice myself', rather than somebody saying, 'I want you to commit suicide'."
Originally posted by Souljah
So teaching and preaching suicide attacks is not something strictly "Muslim".
And the RAF commanders have just prooved that.
I wonder what kind of tactics would they teach, if they had no airplanes...
Originally posted by DeepSixIt
Just a quick one for PaddyInf, I do recall a similar situation during the Falklands war, the SAS Ruperts were toying with the idea, of striking within the Argentinian border to disrupt, comms etc, the idea was ditched at the last minute, as it was blatantly a suicide mission.
[edit on 25-4-2007 by DeepSixIt]