View Full Version : First photo of Indian Air Force C-17A
robbreid
10th Dec 2012, 02:38
http://aeropacific.********.ca/2012/12/first-indian-air-force-c-17a.html
Jet Jockey A4
10th Dec 2012, 02:45
Bad link for me.
Buster Hyman
10th Dec 2012, 02:56
Something wrong with the 8 stars I reckon...
Type in the following letters, no spaces
where the * are
b l o g s p o t
Oh, it looks just like a C-17 :O
Buster Hyman
10th Dec 2012, 03:17
Do I include the spaces 500N, and is it CAPS specific?
"'I have a low IQ and haven't figured this out yet'"
Proof that people modify posts - or have an auto substitution
for what I typed.
FFS guys, unless someone tell you that the * (stars) mean
how the hell are they to know ???????
I had never heard of ......................... until I asked the question.
.
Edit
I see now that they have auto substitution for what I type.
:ugh:
Hey, for those who put in the auto substitution, just remember
that your mother used to wipe your bum before you had an IQ
high enough to figure out how to do it !!!! :O
Oooops, sorry, just been informed that your mother still does it for you !
Buster
No spaces.
I would use small letters as I know that works.
Not sure if caps work.
Apologise for the rant above !
"The first Indian Air Force C-17A (F-253/IAF-1) CB-8001 is bathed in the bright white light of the flight ramp flood lites on December 7, 2012 just hours after emerging from the production hanger at Long Beach Airport (LGB/KLGB)"
One would think people in the aviation business would know how to spell the name of the big building in which you manufacture/park aircraft by now.
Tiger_mate
10th Dec 2012, 04:57
Aeropacific. Bl og sp ot .com without the gaps gets you in the right arena. Land Ro ver written in full auto changes to Trabant; strange sense of humour by some.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A9lhhXhCIAEn9mf.jpg
Trumpet_trousers
10th Dec 2012, 20:37
Bloody hell... fresh out of the paint shop, and some oik has already managed to scrawl some graffiti behind the cockpit windows! :E
Thelma Viaduct
10th Dec 2012, 23:13
Did we buy it for them??
dagama
11th Dec 2012, 15:48
Trumpet_Trousers
That graffiti says 'Bhartiya Vayu Sena' in Hindi. To the layman that would be Indian Air Force! Don't think there any spelling mistakes.
mikip
11th Dec 2012, 16:29
Did we buy it for them??
No it's only their space program we pay for
The Helpful Stacker
11th Dec 2012, 17:05
No it's only their space program we pay for
And their nuclear program.
....and no doubt better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order...;)
racedo
11th Dec 2012, 21:21
Helpful
But you got Curry and shops that open past 6pm as a return.........
Heathrow Harry
12th Dec 2012, 15:24
and a lot of doctors and nurses................... and IT people these days
mikip
12th Dec 2012, 16:06
and IT people these days
I know I was made redundant when our IT department was outsourced to India so that is a very raw nerve
billboard
13th Dec 2012, 02:07
Now i know the reason why we have decided to close down our space and nuclear programmes post 2015. How would we support them without the "huge" British "aid"? :rolleyes:
BTW, when would you guys be able to return the wealth that you "took" from us? I bet the annual interest would itself be many many times the "aid" amount. Ahh, early retirement for a billion people!!:ok:
Thelma Viaduct
13th Dec 2012, 02:12
We civilised you for a while, that should be payment in full. :ok:
Ahh, early retirement for a billion people!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
I doubt it, you would still piss it up against a wall !
And as for "BTW, when would you guys be able to return the wealth that you "took" from us?"
That was payment for making you a near as could be first world country :O,
otherwise you would be still back in the stone ages !
billboard
13th Dec 2012, 03:34
We were quite prosperous before you guys came therefore the argument of civilizing us does not hold. The fact that you guys used military means against a peaceful country and stole from them gives an idea of how "civilized" you people were!!!!
And who gave you people the right to decide what is good for others? We do not want your kind of "civilization" which is based upon colonialism and exploitation of others. To this day you people attack other countries deciding what is good for them. According to you guys, democracy is good for some while in other places you work to topple democratically elected governments!!
Anyways, the good news is that you have f**ked up so many people that sooner or later ...................... . Good Luck!
billboard
You bite so well :O
I will say though that not everyone has it good in India and bribery
and corruption, well, if you need to get something done .................
billboard
13th Dec 2012, 04:39
I will say though that not everyone has it good in India and bribery
and corruption, well, if you need to get something done
And how do people come to think that "there is lot of corruption in India"? Almost all of the cases of corruption you hear about is brought to the notice of the public through Indian media/sources. Corruption is actually a greater issue in our neighboring country to the North-East. But why do people never come to know much about it? Why is there greater noise about corruption in India? Can we kill corruption without creating noise about it? How does corruption feeds into, and form a vicious circle with, poverty and illiteracy that were gifted by British colonialists?
Try and think about these questions and you would understand India better.
BTW there is lot of corruption in western countries as well. But someone would need to piss me off a bit more for that.:)
The fact that you guys used military means against a peaceful country and stole from them gives an idea of how "civilized" you people were!!!! Actually, it was a network of warring kingdoms. The small number of East India Company troops were able to succeed to the degree they did by exploiting the divisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Indian_Wars) and using the strength of neighbouring states against each other.
Thelma Viaduct
13th Dec 2012, 08:19
Thanks for the popadoms and PG tips :} :ok:
Roadster280
13th Dec 2012, 12:16
If India had not been colonised, its citizens wouldn't have learned to complain about it in English!
VinRouge
13th Dec 2012, 12:23
Pious, and a couple of bloody big diamonds!:E
Thelma Viaduct
13th Dec 2012, 14:10
Only messing, Indians are mega. B-)
And they wouldn't have their railway system (http://railradar.trainenquiry.com). :ok:
billboard
You had the Maharaja's who spent copious amounts of money on
things "English", including some of the best English gun collections
in the world.
You had the Maharaja's who spent copious amounts of money on things "English", including some of the best English gun collections in the world. And aircraft. ;)
The Maharaja's Hurricane (http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/_images/_articles/flypastjun05.html)
billboard
13th Dec 2012, 17:25
Actually, it was a network of warring kingdoms. The small number of East India Company troops were able to succeed to the degree they did by exploiting the divisions and using the strength of neighbouring states against each other.
How did we pose a threat to Britain?
And they wouldn't have their railway system
And how could anybody predict that?
You had the Maharaja's who spent copious amounts of money on
things "English", including some of the best English gun collections
in the world.
So?:confused:
FlightlessParrot
13th Dec 2012, 19:32
billboard
There are lots of Englishmen who say that the British Empire exported civilisation. Very doubtful, but there is one piece of evidence in support of that claim: there is bvgger all civilisation left in the UK.
bill board
so ??
"BTW, when would you guys be able to return the wealth
that you "took" from us?"
Where did the Maharaja's get their wealth from ?
From Indians ?
They still had the wealth when the British left.
Milo Minderbinder
13th Dec 2012, 19:52
"We were quite prosperous before you guys came "
Maybe a few poncy Brahmins and military Sihks were, but how about the majority: the poor starving masses, your "untouchables" down at the foot of the wealth table? Those millions living literally the scraps from the waste bin, so despised that if one of you high caste prima donnas as much as stepped in the shadow of one (let alone touched one) you had to go off for god knows how many days of ritual purification (and probably rectal irrigation and mutal backrubbing if I know anything)
Admit it - before the west arrived (and it wasn't just the brits: the french germans and portugese all had territories in India in the 20th century, some until the 1960s - way after we'd gone) India was a land of ragged starving beggars overseen by a regime of money grabbing avaricious feudal elites.
Its a wonder there was never a revolution in pre-British India, along the lines of France - but then I guess the population was so poorly fed they didn't have the strength to get out of bed, let alone fight
"Admit it - before the west arrived.................... India was a land of ragged starving beggars overseen by a regime of money grabbing avaricious feudal elites.
Well, I only saw a very small part of Bombay area when I was there (1980)
and the contrast between the two India's still sticks in my mind to this day.
I can still remember the slums, shanty's, beggars versus the nicer area
of the city.
So at least at that point nothing much had changed.
The Maharaja's were obviously not as wealthy then as before
as they were selling of great collections of things at what you
might say were very cheap prices !!!
Odigron
13th Dec 2012, 20:03
Blimey, this has turned a touch sour.
Let those without sin cast the first stone.
.......put that stone down!
Milo Minderbinder
13th Dec 2012, 20:09
Well, when I read comments by pious naive fools who attempt to retcon history into a story in which the western imperial powers are responsible for all the third worlds self inflicted overpopulation ills, I get so annoyed that I want to vomit words.
The reason why untouchability and caste-ism are now defunct Now that is funny...
billboard
14th Dec 2012, 07:54
Where did the Maharaja's get their wealth from ? From Indians ?
How was it any different from the monarchies in other countries? Had the British not siphoned off wealth from India, it would have stayed within the Indian economy and the trickle down effect would have helped the masses especially with creation of employment and higher wage support.
They still had the wealth when the British left.
Much much less than they would have had otherwise. They were supposed to pay a hefty part of their revenues to the British as "protection money."
Admit it - before the west arrived.................... India was a land of ragged starving beggars overseen by a regime of money grabbing avaricious feudal elites.
lol. So desperate eh?
The Indian economy comprised a quarter of the world economic output at the time when the British came. In plain words, Indian economy was then what the US economy is today.
Economy of India under the British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj)
""An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952""
Its a wonder there was never a revolution in pre-British India, along the lines of France - but then I guess the population was so poorly fed they didn't have the strength to get out of bed, let alone fight
That proves that Indians had it better before the Brits came. Revolutions are not triggered when the population is content. They are triggered when there is widespread discontent. e.g. The Renaissance.
Those millions living literally the scraps from the waste bin, so despised that if one of you high caste prima donnas as much as stepped in the shadow of one (let alone touched one) you had to go off for god knows how many days of ritual purification
And there was no religious persecution in Britain? The most powerful nation of the day came to be inhabited with people trying to escape the persecution in Britain.
America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html)
millions living literally the scraps from the waste bin
Oh no they weren't. The exploiters never starve/kill the exploited because then they cease to take advantage of them. They were well fed but ill-treated. Untouchability was a curse to the society which the Brits never tried to curb so that they could keep the elites on their side. How else did a distant power end up ruling a huge country like India? By getting in bed with the elites.
The reason why untouchability and caste-ism are now defunct is because the constituent assembly that drafted The Constitution of India after independence declared it illegal. In sharp contrast to the British rule, 50% of government jobs and places in colleges were reserved for people affected by caste-ism. And who were the members of this constituent assembly? Overwhelmingly upper caste people!!!
_________________________________________________________
Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution)
""The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the times. It began in Great Britain, then subsequently spread throughout Western Europe, North America, Japan, and eventually the rest of the world.""
The Industrial Revolution that made Britain what it was until the World Wars co-incided with the establishment of their rule in India giving credence to the claim that the revolution was funded with Indian resources. On top of that, local Indian industry was discouraged to give support to imports from Britain.
__________________________________________________________
Well, when I read comments by pious naive fools who attempt to retcon history into a story in which the western imperial powers are responsible for all the third worlds self inflicted overpopulation ills, I get so annoyed that I want to vomit words.
Population explosions took place in co-relation with the literacy levels of different Indian provinces. Those provinces where literacy levels were low had to face a greater population rise. With the literacy rising, population growth has come down substantially. Had money not been stolen from us, we could have run more stronger literacy drives and countered population explosions much earlier.
__________________________________________________________
The question is not whether if, and how much, of the loses due to the British loot got compensated by the benefits perceived by some Britishers. The question is whether it is ethical to siphon off money from the people of another country by interfering in their internal affairs? Is it ethical for one country to force upon other nations, the supposed "benefits" perceived by the invading country?
And there was I thinking that this was a thread about C17s!
B Fraser
14th Dec 2012, 13:10
""An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952""
To me that says that the rest of the world became more prosperous between 1700 and 1952. Who may that have been ? Let's start with the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, most of South America........ etc. That's 3 whole continents plus a number of individual countries.
:ugh:
CargoMatatu
14th Dec 2012, 13:55
So... off to JetBlast we go? :ugh:
Rosevidney1
14th Dec 2012, 17:45
Some people are thin skinned and others are very thin skinned. What, pray tell, is this particular thread achieving?
billboard
16th Dec 2012, 09:46
To me that says that the rest of the world became more prosperous between 1700 and 1952.
duh! Because that was the time during which the Industrial Revolution took place. And while other parts of the world were undergoing the revolution, industrialization was being inhibited in India by the British rule. Had industrialization been allowed to proceed unhindered in India; the rest of the world, sans Britain; would have become even more prosperous due to greater commerce with a more prosperous India.