Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until asians are removed

Remove all ads!

This isn't really the place for a Religion 101 class, but I suppose it is better to have Pac Man give it than a radical cleric of any denomination. And that is the link between religion and terrorism. Its not the text, it is the person who uses the text for their own ends.

Back on topic, you have a wonderful way with words Faye.

In the same vein you could have said;
noone can prove that they act suspiciously with the purpose of meditating.
Noone can prove that they act suspiciously with the purpose of dancing.
Noone can prove that they act suspiciously with the purpose of miming.
Noone can prove that they act suspiciously with the purpose of busking.
Noone can prove that they act suspiciously with the purpose of pulling.

Why? Because they weren't doing any of these other things either.

If you had simply said that noone can prove that they were acting suspiciously, well that would be a different matter, wouldn't it?

There are passenger statements and a TV passenger interview. When challanged the passenger being interviewed on TV requested the airports CCTV footage as proof. Would they have done that if what was on it was going to make them look racist?

Simply saying that they are the victims does not make it so. You have to say who made them a victim and what that person did to victimise them. If they are victims of their own stupidity does that still qualify your statement?

Well if you Faye have a doubt, then all I can say is Allahu Akbar, because I spent a good deal of my last post explaining why at an airport, every doubt should be eliminated to the satisfaction of those in authority.

Word games are fun.

More fun

What is actually behind my headline?

Nutty Asian with known links to a wradical wrevolutionary in bomb drama

It just refers to an episode of the Young Ones. Typical of the irreverent British sense of humour which has caused untold mirth (and an equal amount of trouble) across the planet.

Not as good a headline as Mutiny on Flight 613, but then I am not trying to capitalize on a non-event.

There is a funny side to most situations. With airports it should be kept on the outside.

[ August 28, 2006, 04:56: Message edited by: Ahrontil ]

 

Pacman we have religious nutters both Catholic and Protestant that have killed in the name of their religion. Christianity is a peaceful religion, just like Islam, but there you go.

Do we have suicide bombers? The answer is 'no', simply because we had not faced the hardships that Afghans, Iraqis, Palestanians etc have faced. I can guarentee that Ireland would be full of suicide bombers had the British military bombed and bulldozed our houses, looted out natural resources, tortured us, raped our women, and locked us up without a trial.

The US attacked Iraq when they 'had' WMD's, my friends and I commented on the restraint that the Iraqi's had show. If it was N.Ireland, all hell would have broken loose. To this day, I am still amazed at the restraint that the vast majority of Muslims show.

 

Well, since you put it that way, thank you. I try my best to voice my opinion with hopes of trying not to step on anyone's toes.

Well, since I wasn't there at the incident I can only infer as much as I can. And from the article (I have already pointed out that I only know that much about the incident, from the article and I did not watch any of the interviews) the description given (scruffy, thick clothes, beard, Asian origin, checks watch often, speaks a foreign language) does not seem like suspicious behaviour to me and I have mentioned my logic in a previous post. The alarm given by the lady is awfully vague, with no clue (from the article) to what she heard as well as the context of the statement, and I can't make any judgements on that.

If the passenger requests the airport CCTV as proof, then good on them. And yet, the two of them were still cleared of security and caught a later flight (if the CCTV was checked and they were found to be acting suspiciously, I doubt that they would be cleared so easily. From what I know, it is illegal to joke about bombs and whatnots in the airport which can lead to an arrest).
So the sentence is flawed. Fine, my bad, English is not my first language anyway

Again, I see them as the victims because what they did (or did not do) does not seem criminal to me and were the ones forced to leave the plane. If they did something that is deserving of it, then by all means give them the boot.

I give them the benefit of the doubt because everyone is innocent until proven guilty (or at least thats the way it should be). I was in no way refering to any doubt in the matters of airport security.

Again, I want to stress that I only know as much as what the first article says and I have not watched any of the interviews. I have also been very busy the past few days and have only been checking in periodically and have not been reading every single post. To be honest, I did not read the article you posted before my postings (30 seconds to live).

 

Fun Fact: Kamikaze pilots in World War 2 were Buddhist. They believed that, by killing themselves in a blaze of glory, they would bring honour to their family and move on to the next life.

So, really, ANY religion's teachings could be used to rationalise wanton violence. It's just that the situation in the Middle East has meant that a lot of maniacs are using the whole "martyrdom" concept existing in Islam to justify blowing themselves to pieces.

If these guys were screwing around, then it's justified that there was a panic. However, if their only crime was looking a bit scruffy and speaking their native language, this is indicative of how paranoid people have become as a result of the media hype.

 

Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis from wealthy families, what kind of hardships did they have to face ? Or the Pakistanis that were living in England, far from all the misery in Gaza, Baghdad, or Kandahar ? Or the Moroccans that blew up the trains in Madrid ? Were they facing any hardships as Spanish citizens ?

Come up with a more convincing theory, the first one is already going limp.

 

If your country was invaded, would you be too cowardly to defend her?

I don't agree with attacks in Newyork, Madrid, or London (or any bastards that attack civillians), but I respect anyone that defends their own country.

Anyway this is completely off topic. To sum things up, not all Muslims are terrorists (dispite what Americas best selling author states). I have better things to do than worry about terrorists hijacking my flight to Crete in 2 weeks time.

[ August 28, 2006, 12:55: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

What the hell has that got to do with Moroccans blowing up trains in Spain ? Or Pakistanis blowing up busses in England. Or Saudis flying planes into buildings in the US ?

Was Pakistan invaded lately ? I dunno, maybe i missed something when i was asleep. Or Saudi Arabia...did someone invade them when i wasn't looking ?

And even if they were...how is blowing up public transportation in some far away overseas country going to help you defend your country ?

 

Is it really necessary that their countries has to be invaded? My country isn't invaded too but especially after the last events in Lebanon if you ask someone on the street "What do you think about Israel (or USA or UK)?" he/she would speak with hate and anger and wouldn't say good things. Even atheists or people who aren't very religious would speak the same too. It's not Koran or Islam that drives this people mad and make them suicide bombers (since suicide is forbidden in Islam). It is USA's politics that makes people mad. When people see dead children and women on TV they curse Israel and USA.

The roots of this hate goes back to foundation of Islam i think. Muslims believe Christians are playing games over them ,trying to divide them to make Muslims kill each other and they have been doing this for centuries. Their spies (like Lawrance) and interest in the middle east area during history shows Muslims are not wrong. And now they see America as the strongest Christian country so 9/11 attack shouldn't be shocking if it was done by a group of fanatic Muslims. I'm not sure about who did the attack and i think CIA knew it and could have stopped it but didn't, you can find lots of conspiracy theories on the net.

Even if all the conspiracy theories are wrong there is something wrong with USA. They should have stopped after Afghanistan. They left Osama there and came to Iraq. Didn't they want to find him? I think USA needs an enemy and found it but doesn't want to kill it because an enemy is required to attack somewhere.

Why did USA attack Iraq? IMO reasons were money and religion. Money comes from both Iraq's oil and reconstruction by USA companies. They have killed lots of civilians in last two invasions of Iraq, especially the last one. Also in their last "crusade" they've tortured and humiliated people. Their soldiers saw Muslims as worthless animals.

They also lied about chemical weapons. No chemical weapons or facilities are found and if USA cares too much about these weapons they could invade Israel, they have enough nuclear and chemical weapons to blow entire Middle East. This is double standard.

After all these lies and evil deeds USA has created chaos and escaped there. We see lots of bad news from there, Muslims are killing each other.

And they will attack western countries too, western people will live in fear as we see in this last plane event. And Mr. Bush will use this fear and gain more support and he will go and create new terrorists by attacking somewhere and killing innocent people again and terrorists will attack USA and another Bushoid creature will be elected and he will do the same and it will go on like that.

I'm sorry if i have done mistakes in this long and boring post.

 

In the entire history, there is no country that always remained very powerful. And I think it won't change. At some point in the future, there will be a greater power than US.

 

I can grant you these criticisms against US policy, which have often been wrongheaded. But I still wonder, where is the outrage in the Muslim world against the genocide in Darfur? Likewise, I've known a number of Turks studying in the US active in Peace Now type organizations, who are more than glad to criticize any and every use of US or Israeli power, but who suddenly get all hard-line nationalist if you mention the Kurds or Armenians... All I'm saying is perspective please.

 

Ah, but the genocide in Darfur involves muslims, so that one doesn't count. It's much easier to rant and rave over a few cartoons.

 

I don't know much about problems in Darfur. I've made a search in Wikipedia and i've got the same result with most middle eastern countries. I've seen Britain's hand in this area. Did i get shocked? No. I'm sure imperialist countries are behind these events. Look at the map of Africa, their borders are straight lines cut by imperialists.

About that cartoon crisis and the guy (director of a movie about Islam) killed in Netherlands i agree with you. Some Muslims need to learn something about free speech. But your generalisations are wrong. I know many Muslims who thinks cartoons and movie are rude but they are against killing these guys or burning Denmark flags etc.

 

I wasn't completely serious there Dengo, noticed the smiley ?

 

How does "seeing Britain's hand" in Sudan translate to British responsibility for the genocide there? You might as well say that the Turks were responsible because Sudan was ruled by the Ottoman viceroy of Egypt before the Brits. Granted, the history of colonialism was sordid, and colonialist powers (including the Ottomans) deserve a portion of the blame. But they are not the ones out there slaughtering hundreds of thousands, displacing millions, and using systematic rape as a tool for ethnic cleansing like in Darfur. That would be Sudanese Arabs.

 

A read a story about an author a few days ago. Someone from Africa came and asked him "Were Ottomans imperialists or not?". And he replied "If they were imperialists you wouldn't ask this question to me in English, you would ask it in Turkish." I don't want to defend Ottomans but i'm sure they were better than England.

We have some good reasons to do so. I'm sure they are behind these things too because there is oil that USA loves so much. Possibly they have spies there trying to create chaos, after their success USA will attack there and maybe will kill much more people but will be seen as saviour.

No. It seems they tried a stupid joke which was very wrong.

(I've forgot that in my previous post) Radical Muslims don't like nationalism and they don't like those who caused these events.

I think i seem like a fanatic Muslim but I don't believe in God. I think you have too much prejudice against them. I have lived with them all my life and most of them were very tolerant towards me. They don't just kill you for not believing what they believe. OTOH there are some idiots who would do that. They try to do everything as exactly written in Koran. They do Jihad but some people say Jihad can be made with pen and paper too. There was some passages from Koran in previous posts that seems hostile but can be interpreted in other ways too though there are some really hostile ones but as i said people has tolerance (unless you invade their lands and bomb them).

I cannot say everything is perfect in Islam (I don't like issues about women and some other things) but your prejudice is too much.

 

Something similar

Okay he was not kicked off, but some uncultured/racist idiots made him change into another t-shirt because it had arabic characters

 

You mean a Bu****e? Or an American? It's absurd isn't it that a protest against the unilateral actions of the US and it's subsiduary (UK) to fight wars on whatever they're calling it this week, has to remove it because of a moron. I hope he sues the airline for abusing his first amendment rights, and then Bush and his administration for creating the hysterical environment where such things could happen.

EDIT: Now tha's funny as to what it does to a Bush supporter

 

So, it finally comes out, huh? You don't know any "nutjob" muslims.....as you have insisted every time the issue has come up between you and me. In other words those "experiences" you have had that clearly show that the vast majority of muslims condone terrorism which I, as a lowly Arabic linguist from the USA, would somehow not have been privy to and would be unable to understand, stem from hearsay and maybe the press. You were right about one thing, though. I don't understand. Why do you feel content to adopt other peoples judgements about Islam without seeing firsthand any evidence of those judgements actually being true? And why isn't that racism?

 

With nutjobs i meant the ones that are willing to blow themselves up, not the ones that agree with situations like 9/11, i've met plenty of those. From my point of view, they're nuts too, except they are not the ones that put their money where their mouth is, that's the difference. You wanna call me a racist ? go right ahead, you've made up your mind anyway.