Some time ago there was a smallish to-do about the nature of the "Flying Imams" case in the US, where a gang of gits was removed from an aircraft for acting in a suspicous manner; ultimately and unsurprisingly it was found that one of them had some substantial connectsion to terrorism. The suspicion - quite rightly - was that it was another provocation tied to the good old Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), that quaint little Muslim Brotherhood-founded, terrorist-associated, Hamas-criticism-negative quietly islamic supremacist outlet run by guys who think islam "is meant to dominate, not be dominated", among other things.

Now while I've essentially ended discussion on the issue (:) ) there's some reflective news:

During a terror raid in Manchester, England, British police officers searched an Al Qaeda member's home and discovered a manual outlining terrorists' tactics for jihad. The manual, available through the Department of Justice's Archive, is particularly interesting in its behind-the-scenes revelations about how terrorists gather intelligence about their enemy and conduct espionage in the enemy's camp.

...

I am John Doe, in spirit, and I'm also John Doe in reality. I am Annie Jacobsen and three years ago, I saw something on an airplane and I said something about it. I wasn't sued -- but a whole lot of other things happened instead.

What I saw on Northwest Flight 327 was a group of Syrian men act as though they were going to hijack the plane. The men blocked the aircraft aisles, knocked over a passenger and spent so much time in the aircraft bathrooms that one Syrian emerged covered in toilet chemicals. As the flight was about to land, seven of the men stood in the aisle and used the toilets while the leader read from a small red book. One of the men then made a slashing motion across his throat and mouthed the word, 'no.'

What I saw on that Detroit-to-Los Angeles flight was so alarming it never occurred to me to censor myself when it came to speaking out about what happened on the flight. It never occurred to me to worry about getting sued. First I spoke with federal agents for two hours, under oath, detailing what I saw. Later, after I learned that the government botched the investigation of the Syrians and then tried to cover their mistakes, I spoke up about that. For three years now, I've spoken up about what I saw as a guest on more than 400 radio and television programs. I've written 28 articles on the subject as well as a book. I'm so glad I did.

Federal counterterrorism agents have told me that the Syrians on the flight I was on were practicing how to build a bomb in the aircraft toilet -- that the flight I was on was something known in counterterrorism circles as a "dry run." Other federal agents have told me it was more likely "the real deal called off." But that information came to me much later. That information came long after WomensWallStreet.com published my original 3,000-word article in which I describe exactly what I saw.

Any reasonable person would have done what I did; others on the flight went on television and described the terror resulting from what they saw on Flight 327, too. Eventually, the White House asked the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, to investigate exactly what happened on the flight. The investigation, called Review of the Department's Handling of Suspicious Passengers Aboard Northwest Flight 327, took 22 months to complete (I was interviewed for the investigation). The review is a textbook case of why reporting suspicious behavior must be a citizen's protected right. If this review were used in the imams' lawsuit against John Doe, it could function as John Doe's defense item Exhibit-1. But the review can't be used in John Doe's defense because the government classified its findings.

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/columns/column.aspx?aid=1205&p=1

The new phase that we seem to be headed for - or, rather, that some parties, such as CAIR, seem to be trying to head us for - is of the crushing of the rights and ability of individual citizens to report suspicious findings. In other words, to legislate their eyes closed. Self-censorship. Obviously, that's a bad thing, as the above case proves. Yet now why would CAIR, well, care about self-censorship? Given their history, I imagine the answer is obvious. CAIR makes a great deal of noise about the supposed suppression of islamic rights in the US - cases which, in fact, end up being more about their supremacist agenda than anything else.

(I wonder how CAIR might feel about any of the following items of actual religious discrimination:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9026&size=A
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152825471&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015712.php

Meh. I don't really wonder.)

But the question is: how to make reasonable limits on the ability of organizations like CAIR to attempt to muzzle citizens and thereby create security gaps under the auspice (ironically enough) of a system designed to protect the rights of minorities? Obviously one cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, no matter how repugnant the bathwater has become.

Geoff

ban them alltogether

GeoffP, some were I read a article about the fact that Islamic terrorist do dry runs before the actual attack, or hijacking, it is for reconnoissance and proving the plan, I wish I could remember where I saw the article.

For three years now, I've spoken up about what I saw as a guest on more than 400 radio and television programs. I've written 28 articles on the subject as well as a book. I'm so glad I did.I bet she's glad. She's probably quite wealthy now. A book on the subject? Jesus.

I agree people should be able to report things without fear of being sued, but I think laws should be in place to stop people milking it when they're involved in these things.

During a terror raid in Manchester, England, British police officers searched an Al Qaeda member's home and discovered a manual outlining terrorists' tactics for jihad. The manual, available through the Department of Justice's Archive, is particularly interesting in its behind-the-scenes revelations about how terrorists gather intelligence about their enemy and conduct espionage in the enemy's camp.

Thats hard to believe. Alot of these reports are 100% horseshit, just like the article. Most people have 'suspicious material' at home, stuff that could be used to commit 'terrorist attacks'.

What I saw on Northwest Flight 327 was a group of Syrian men act as though they were going to hijack the plane. The men blocked the aircraft aisles, knocked over a passenger and spent so much time in the aircraft bathrooms that one Syrian emerged covered in toilet chemicals. As the flight was about to land, seven of the men stood in the aisle and used the toilets while the leader read from a small red book. One of the men then made a slashing motion across his throat and mouthed the word, 'no.'

LMFAO!!! :roflmao:

:fright:

GeoffP, some were I read a article about the fact that Islamic terrorist do dry runs before the actual attack, or hijacking, it is for reconnoissance and proving the plan, I wish I could remember where I saw the article.

la-la land.com?

Thats hard to believe. Alot of these reports are 100% horseshit, just like the article. Most people have 'suspicious material' at home, stuff that could be used to commit 'terrorist attacks'.



LMFAO!!! :roflmao:

:fright:

Yeah, I downloaded a similar manual from our government's own website (since removed).

reading comprehension?

Yeah, I downloaded a similar manual from our government's own website (since removed).

Yeh, but you'd be able to get away with it. If you're brown and Muslim its a completely different story. I remember being at an airport waiting for a flight and having lots of people staring at me. It was a piss take and at the same time sort of funny. I thought I’d try and scare them a bit, I kept looking at my watch, looking around nervously and pacing up and down. Was kind of stupid though. (I didn't do anything on the plane though)

I thought I’d try and scare them a bit, I kept looking at my watch, looking around nervously and pacing up and down. Was kind of stupid though.
:roflmao:
:bravo:
I think it's great!

:roflmao:
:bravo:
I think it's great!

lol. Thank you. :D

Thats hard to believe. Alot of these reports are 100% horseshit, just like the article. Most people have 'suspicious material' at home, stuff that could be used to commit 'terrorist attacks'.

Actually, it's your comments that are pure horseshit - frankly, I wonder if you know much about anything. You have no evidence whatsoever to disprove anything, and come to think of it you never have. I notice that you think it's funny to scare people though - and have missed the entire point of the article, that these people were on a dry run for a terrorist attack, have demonstrably done so in the past.

Actually, it's your comments that are pure horseshit - frankly, I wonder if you know much about anything. You have no evidence whatsoever to disprove anything, and come to think of it you never have. I notice that you think it's funny to scare people though - and have missed the entire point of the article, that these people were on a dry run for a terrorist attack, have demonstrably done so in the past.

Oh please.

How many 'Al-Qaeda' members arrested in the UK have been released without charge? It happens all the time, I believe most of the mateys arrested over the Heathrow bomb plot were released. If you want links, I'll be more than happy to provide them. Or you could just go into google and search 'Muslim released without charge'. The picture painted by the mainstream media and parroted by the US admin and manipulated by hate sites such as Jihadwatch.org is complete horseshit.

I notice that you think it's funny to scare people though

I think it's hilarious. I'd do it again if I have the chance. (I wouldn't do anything on a plane though) Plus you’ll notice only the idiots get scared.

that these people were on a dry run for a terrorist attack, have demonstrably done so in the past.

Then charge them and send them to prison. That’s if you have any fucking proof!?! (no, I didn’t read the entire article – did I miss anything?)

Yeh, but you'd be able to get away with it. If you're brown and Muslim its a completely different story. I remember being at an airport waiting for a flight and having lots of people staring at me. It was a piss take and at the same time sort of funny. I thought I’d try and scare them a bit, I kept looking at my watch, looking around nervously and pacing up and down. Was kind of stupid though. (I didn't do anything on the plane though)

That's hilarious. My friend, one time? He was standing around some obviously muslim family at the airport; they were talking together, minding their own business. Usually he dresses up in a suit when he travels, so he decides to give them the business.

He flips the shades on and starts pretending to talk into his cellphone while staring at them and walking past them or near them a lot. He starts off the call with an audible "Hi. Is this Airport Security?" and then starts whispering. Well the dad is just glaring at him and his wife is trying to hush the kids, and make them sit quietly - total terror written on her face. Anyway, the family is freaking out and eventually the little girl is crying too because she doesn't know what's going on and her parents are flipping, right? Then he walks right up to them and the husband is just staring pure hate at him and so my friend asks "is there a problem, sir?" Apparently it was like the guy just switched right into humble mode. "No sir, no problem, sir."

Oh, man. I wish I'd seen it. Hilarious.

Oh please.

How many 'Al-Qaeda' members arrested in the UK have been released without charge? It happens all the time, I believe most of the mateys arrested over the Heathrow bomb plot were released. If you want links, I'll be more than happy to provide them. Or you could just go into google and search 'Muslim released without charge'. The picture painted by the mainstream media and parroted by the US admin and manipulated by hate sites such as Jihadwatch.org is complete horseshit.

Then you should be able to do so for the above. Go on and find them. Ridiculous. So in Ghost's opinion, there are no terrorists, and anyone accused of terrorism is ipso facto innocent. Well, that makes sense.

Then charge them and send them to prison. That’s if you have any fucking proof!?! (no, I didn’t read the entire article – did I miss anything?)

This, apparently:

The report contains information that ties at least two of the Syrians from the dry run on Flight 327 to an earlier dry run on different airlines -- Frontier Airlines Flight 577. That the TSA missed connecting these dots and instead allowed the Syrians to go free without answering some serious questions reveals a great flaw in the aviation security net.

So, you want to argue sources, or are you going to do your usual "no, all these reports are crap, there's no such thing as terrorists" routine? Because it's getting pretty boring.

:yawn:

That's hilarious. My friend, one time? He was standing around some obviously muslim family at the airport; they were talking together, minding their own business. Usually he dresses up in a suit when he travels, so he decides to give them the business.

He flips the shades on and starts pretending to talk into his cellphone while staring at them and walking past them or near them a lot. He starts off the call with an audible "Hi. Is this Airport Security?" and then starts whispering. Well the dad is just glaring at him and his wife is trying to hush the kids, and make them sit quietly - total terror written on her face. Anyway, the family is freaking out and eventually the little girl is crying too because she doesn't know what's going on and her parents are flipping, right? Then he walks right up to them and the husband is just staring pure hate at him and so my friend asks "is there a problem, sir?" Apparently it was like the guy just switched right into humble mode. "No sir, no problem, sir."

Oh, man. I wish I'd seen it. Hilarious.

rotfl

I always knew it, you're as petty and spiteful as they come.

You keep letting your mask slip. What is it you said you were, a biologist with an interest in social justice? lmfao!

What's spiteful about that, man? It's a funny story.

Hey, did you catch the thread title? The "expectations" part refers to you, man. :D

Then you should be able to do so for the above. Go on and find them. Ridiculous. So in Ghost's opinion, there are no terrorists, and anyone accused of terrorism is ipso facto innocent. Well, that makes sense.

Red herring. When did I say that? Pathetic. :rolleyes:
If there is a terrorist out there, I want them locked up, trust me. I believe I told you that my own brother just missed the 7/7 bombings, you don't know how much I hate terrorists.

Yeh, and the sources you wanted:

Two held in terror raid released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5066166.stm)

Two men arrested after a raid on a house in east London have been released without charge, Scotland Yard said.

Police questioned two brothers, one of whom was shot during the raid, on suspicion of terrorism involvement.

Guantanamo four are released without charge (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=99342005)

THE four Britons who were returned to the UK after being detained without trial at the United States prison camp in Guantanamo Bay for three years were freed last night without charge.

Anger at release of two held over ‘beheading plot’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1350403.ece)

Muslim leaders reacted with anger last night after two of the nine suspects alleged to be involved in a plot to kidnap and kill a British soldier were released without charge.

And there are plenty more. ;)

So, you want to argue sources, or are you going to do your usual "no, all these reports are crap, there's no such thing as terrorists" routine? Because it's getting pretty boring.

So what happened to those Syrians?

Have they been charged or what? Or is this just more scaremongering. :eek:

Heh. He did a runner. Apparently he's been doing his stalking though. Good luck with that one.

Just goes to show you though: some people can dish it out, but they can't handle it. When it's someone else being abused, it's all cool. When it's their group, then it's not so cool. Aren't hypocrites supposed to be the most damned?

If there is a terrorist out there, I want them locked up, trust me. I believe I told you that my own brother just missed the 7/7 bombings, you don't know how much I hate terrorists.

No, I don't, and neither does anyone else.

You want them "locked up", but you don't seem to believe in arresting anyone. So your airy-fairy opinion seems to be "yeah, if there were any real terrorists, I'd want them locked up, but nobody accused is actually guilty". Sad.

So what happened to those Syrians? Have they been charged or what? Or is this just more scaremongering.

No idea: but the point was that it was a threat that was taken seriously, whether or not those people were actually terrorists, except by you of course. So again: you want them "locked up", yet you don't believe in any arrests. Why bother to write anything then? :rolleyes:

Heh. He did a runner. Apparently he's been doing his stalking though. Good luck with that one.

Just goes to show you though: some people can dish it out, but they can't handle it. When it's someone else being abused, it's all cool. When it's their group, then it's not so cool. Aren't hypocrites supposed to be the most damned?

They're called Americans.:rolleyes:

Another note on that: the real thing that's got Ghost riled up is that I puncture CAIR yet again. I don't say all muslims are like CAIR, or that they are members thereof, or that all muslims even hold the same opinions as CAIR. Yet what's got him up in arms is that I dared criticize his coreligionists. This is tribalism. Everyone is probably guilty of it to one degree or another; but I'm criticizing the bad guys here, not all muslims, nor even all islam.

So: think, and consider.

They're called Americans.:rolleyes:

Among others, Sam. :rolleyes:

but I'm criticizing the bad guys here, not all muslims, nor even all islam.

So: think, and consider.

You seem pretty confused about the distinctions yourself, most of the time.

What's spiteful about that, man? It's a funny story.

Hey, did you catch the thread title? The "expectations" part refers to you, man. :D

Is it funny? Not really, it was mean, especially since there were young children about, your boyfriend made a little Muslim girl cry! S/he should be really proud of him/herself, s/he’s playing his/her part in this ‘war on terror’. I'm surprised some one interested in 'social justice' would be able to laugh at that though. :rolleyes:

Regarding my situation, I was completely outnumbered, if I had crossed the line I would have been fucking nailed. I assessed the situation, got a feeling for what was appropriate and what was crossing the line, and then I executed the plan to perfection. No kids were scared, there was nothing like that, only the bigots would even be staring at me in the first place, so if they were scared, good. rotfl.

You cannot compare the two situations. I would never cross the line, however your voluptuous boy-friend did.

You seem pretty confused about the distinctions yourself, most of the time.

Not really, no.

Edit: To which I add: if you actually believe that about me, then please do present some evidence from my posts. I'm sure it must abound, since I seem confused about the distinction "most of the time".

Is it funny? Not really, it was mean, especially since there were young children about, your boyfriend made a little Muslim girl cry! S/he should be really proud of him/herself, s/he’s playing his/her part in this ‘war on terror’. I'm surprised some one interested in 'social justice' would be able to laugh at that though.

What? You don't like the story? But it's hilarious. You see, you're implying that it's ok to play on stereotypes to frighten innocent people. And in my story, the girl wasn't scared, except by her mother, maybe. And if the guy was really, really angry about people taking a sensible interest in the safety of the passengers, well then he wasn't very nice either. A societally responsible person would have smiled and just cooperated with whatever was to come, right?

Really, the two stories are quite alike. But you prefer the one to the other, and, by implication - since you posted against me on the thread talking about a number of Syrian men terrorizing women and children on airplanes - you seem to be ok with the principle. Your biggest beef is how it's applied, apparently.

Why's that?

Heh. He did a runner. Apparently he's been doing his stalking though. Good luck with that one.

lmfao. You know how ridiculous this whole story sounds?

Just goes to show you though: some people can dish it out, but they can't handle it. When it's someone else being abused, it's all cool. When it's their group, then it's not so cool. Aren't hypocrites supposed to be the most damned?

You're losing it GeoffP. 'their group' lol, only you see the World that way. I see humans around me, individuals. You're the one here that sees the World that way (Muslims on one side, Non Muslims on the other.)

:rolleyes:

You're losing it GeoffP. 'their group' lol, only you see the World that way. I see humans around me, individuals. You're the one here that sees the World that way (Muslims on one side, Non Muslims on the other.)

Well then you should appreciate that my story is only about terrifying a couple of individuals. It doesn't really matter that they were muslim, does it? I mean, there's no difference. It was just an area they could be terrified on. Just like you attempting to scare people who might be concerned for their safety isn't about you being muslim and them not. So it's all good. No?

ban them alltogether

I just reviewed my thread starter to see what had enraged Ghost so, and I spotted this post. So: don't be ridiculous dragon.

Not really, no.

Edit: To which I add: if you actually believe that about me, then please do present some evidence from my posts. I'm sure it must abound, since I seem confused about the distinction "most of the time".

For starters, refer to the posts where I replied "Bias".

Then read these:
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=1336326

:yawn:

For starters, refer to the posts where I replied "Bias".

Then read these:
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=1336326

:yawn:

You'll notice in each and every one I distinguish between islamism, islamists, political islam, and muslims. Again: illustrate to me where I confuse the two. Or is it criticism of anything islamic you don't like?

What? You don't like the story? But it's hilarious. You see, you're implying that it's ok to play on stereotypes to frighten innocent people. And in my story, the girl wasn't scared, except by her mother, maybe. And if the guy was really, really angry about people taking a sensible interest in the safety of the passengers, well then he wasn't very nice either. A societally responsible person would have smiled and just cooperated with whatever was to come, right?

Huh? the girl wasn't scared? she cried because of her mother? but you said...

What the hell are you talking about. There is nothing funny about making little girls cry, especially in front of their parents.

And what did that guy do, you said he was obviously Muslim, that makes it okay for your boyfriend to hassle him?

Really, the two stories are quite alike. But you prefer the one to the other, and, by implication - since you posted against me on the thread talking about a number of Syrian men terrorizing women and children on airplanes - you seem to be ok with the principle. Your biggest beef is how it's applied, apparently.

Why's that?

No they're not. Your boyfriend crossed the line.

What those Syrians did was funny, I won't lie, it made me laugh, but the laughter stops as soon as I begin to think of the kids in that plane. What they did was wrong, they crossed the line. By the way, were there any kids on the plane? Were they crying? I didn’t read the article so please spill the beans.

Or is it criticism of anything islamic you don't like?

There you go again:p

Well then you should appreciate that my story is only about terrifying a couple of individuals. It doesn't really matter that they were muslim, does it? I mean, there's no difference. It was just an area they could be terrified on. Just like you attempting to scare people who might be concerned for their safety isn't about you being muslim and them not. So it's all good. No?

But you said your boyfriend hassled them because they appeared to be Muslim! :eek:

Huh? the girl wasn't scared? she cried because of her mother? but you said...

What the hell are you talking about. There is nothing funny about making little girls cry, especially in front of their parents.

Oh, I agree. Yet in my story it was the mother, not my friend, who did that. If she'd just chilled, all would have been fine. Same for the father.

And what did that guy do, you said he was obviously Muslim, that makes it okay for your friend to hassle him?

Well...what did those other people do, that you thought it was ok for you to scare them? Why is it ok to scare other people on the basis of your being muslim and their not? They weren't doing anything except, at most, paying attention to what was going on around them: which apparently, from the article, is a good idea. I don't recall them doing even that. Yet you call them bigoted.

And here's a related question I've been dying to ask: what would you call a muslim who called the police on you, or was nervous about your behaviour? I mean, would they be, like the others, a "bigot"? Because that's a distinction you've used here. So I'm interested, since you seem to draw this line of distinction.

No they're not. Your boyfriend crossed the line.

Because he harassed muslims: I see.

What those Syrians did was funny, I won't lie, it made me laugh, but the laughter stops as soon as I begin to think of the kids in that plane. What they did was wrong, they crossed the line.

So you begin to understand: hassling people on the basis of religion or belief is wrong. Good. And yet you've done the same. Were there kids there? Did you even look, or care? I wonder.

Geoff

There you go again:p

Well since you've made the accusation that it's muslims I'm biased against, rather than political islam, it's up to you to prove it, I would imagine.

Well since you've made the accusation that it's muslims I'm biased against, rather than political islam, it's up to you to prove it, I would imagine.

What, the ideological training? Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran.

Read it sometime, and figure out what has the rest of the world so concerned about a witless 7th-century ideologue.

There you go

There you go

? That's nothing against muslims. Muslims worship Allah, not Mohammed. I just happen to feel that Mohammed's character was not all it could be. You could say if you wanted that I was anti-islam, although, again, Mohammed isn't islam, but merely a supposed transmitter of Allah's "message". Or are you taking 4:80 too literally again? And he wasn't a nice guy. What should I say in that circumstance?

? That's nothing against muslims. Muslims worship Allah, not Mohammed. I just happen to feel that Mohammed's character was not all it could be. You could say if you wanted that I was anti-islam, although, again, Mohammed isn't islam, but merely a supposed transmitter of Allah's "message". Or are you taking 4:80 too literally again? And he wasn't a nice guy. What should I say in that circumstance?

So demeaning the Quran and the Prophet is pro-Muslim? You learn something everyday.

Of course since all Muslims have nothing to do with either that makes complete sense.

So demeaning the Quran and the Prophet is pro-Muslim? You learn something everyday.

Demeaning? How is it demeaning to call someone on something they've actually done? It's bloody describing, not demeaning.

Of course since all Muslims have nothing to do with either that makes complete sense.

There's a difference between muslims and islam. Islam is only an idea. And there are lots of muslims questioning the history of islam, and of Mohammed, a huge swathe of reformers. Aren't there?

There's a difference between muslims and islam. Islam is only an idea. And there are lots of muslims questioning the history of islam, and of Mohammed, a huge swathe of reformers. Aren't there?

Are there any Muslims that don't acknowledge the Quran or Mohammed?

And what is the difference between Muslims and Islam? Are there Muslims without the "idea" of Islam?

Please let me know of these Muslims questioning the history of the Quran and of Mohammed?

Oh, I agree. Yet in my story it was the mother, not my friend, who did that. If she'd just chilled, all would have been fine. Same for the father.

So your boyfriend hassles an innocent family because they appear to be Muslim, and then somehow, the mother is to blame for making the girl cry, what is it you said 'If she'd just chilled, all would have been fine' lmfao, maybe if your boyfriend didn't hassle innocent people that appear Muslim everything would be fine.

Interest in social justice?! get out of here. :rolleyes:

Well...what did those other people do, that you thought it was ok for you to scare them? Why is it ok to scare other people on the basis of your being muslim and their not? They weren't doing anything except, at most, paying attention to what was going on around them: which apparently, from the article, is a good idea. I don't recall them doing even that. Yet you call them bigoted.

They were staring at me. Its rude to stare, you should know that. Since they were staring at me, I think its okay for me to put on a little show for them, you know what I mean? ;) And for your information, no kids were staring at me, there were no tears, I'm a nice guy. Plus, the guys that were staring were fat and ugly.

And here's a related question I've been dying to ask: what would you call a muslim who called the police on you, or was nervous about your behaviour? I mean, would they be, like the others, a "bigot"? Because that's a distinction you've used here. So I'm interested, since you seem to draw this line of distinction.

Look, I was minding my own fucking business, waiting for a flight when I noticed a bunch of fat, ugly men staring at me. I though I'd put a show on for them. There is no justification for the way they were looking at me, none whatsoever. You obviously don't know what its like for people to stare at you just because you have brown skin (which is prob the main reason – I don’t have a beard, I wear Western clothing etc), well sometimes, it sucks big hairy monkey balls, believe me. If anyone had called the authorities I would have told that person to go and make love to a donkey, in the mouth.

Because he harassed muslims: I see.

Strawman.

So you begin to understand: hassling people on the basis of religion or belief is wrong. Good. And yet you've done the same. Were there kids there? Did you even look, or care? I wonder.

Geoff

What the fuck are you talking about.

Of course hassling people on the basis of religion, colour etc. is wrong. I never do that. But your boyfriend has, have you admonished him yet? Oh yeh, you said you found it funny. So much for all that shit about social justice. :rolleyes:

Are there any Muslims that don't acknowledge the Quran or Mohammed?

And what is the difference between Muslims and Islam? Are there Muslims without the "idea" of Islam?

Well, again: islam is an idea. Christians can criticize Christianity, can't they? I don't think you're really getting the difference here. I can criticize Christianity and Judaism as religions, without being critical of Jews or Christians themselves, as I've said previously.

Please let me know of these Muslims questioning the history of the Quran and of Mohammed?

I'll be right on that. But I was under the impression Mohammed was merely a prophet. Just a guy. You can't question people? That's odd.

So your friend hassles an innocent family because they appear to be Muslim, and then somehow, the mother is to blame for making the girl cry, what is it you said 'If she'd just chilled, all would have been fine' lmfao, maybe if your friend didn't hassle innocent people that appear Muslim everything would be fine.

Well, what did she have to be scared of? They clearly weren't doing anything except staring at my friend because he happened to be talking on the phone. The kid didn't know anything about it; all she knew was that her mother was being bitchy or what have you. Maybe the mother should have just held it together. You seemed totally cool with the whole concept of scaring people societally until you took my bait on the "children" thing.

They were staring at me. Its rude to stare, you should know that. Since they were staring at me, I think its okay for me to put on a little show for them, you know what I mean? ;) And for your information, no kids were staring at me, there were no tears, I'm a nice guy. Plus, the guys that were staring were fat and ugly.

Well, since this muslim guy was obviously angry at my friend wearing a suit and shades, then it's fine to scare the crap out of him. Isn't it? Maybe the people were staring at you because they though you were cute or something. You've no idea, really.

There is no justification for the way they were looking at me, none whatsoever. You obviously don't know what its like for people to stare at you

Oh, but I do. I've been stared at by many people. That doesn't mean I try to make them think they're about to die.

Strawman.

No, no: accurate assessment.

Of course hassling people on the basis of religion, colour etc. is wrong. I never do that. But your friend has, have you admonished him yet? Oh yeh, you said you found it funny. So much for all that shit about social justice. :rolleyes:

Why, I certainly did tell him what he did was wrong. But he said the father was giving him the evil eye, like, and he excused himself on that basis. What can I say? It's wrong to stare at people. Some places, I understand, it's even going to become illegal. :eek:

PUPILS and teachers have been told by an official body not to stare at Muslims for fear of causing offence.

A document intended to educate against religious intolerance and sectarianism urges teachers to “make pupils aware of the various forms of Islamophobia, ie stares, verbal abuse, physical abuse”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1654995.ece

The really ironic thing about Ghost's whole little argument is that he never bothered to address anything in the thread, or even my links below about actual discrimination. It's more important that his tribe wins out. Sad.

Well, again: islam is an idea. Christians can criticize Christianity, can't they? I don't think you're really getting the difference here. I can criticize Christianity and Judaism as religions, without being critical of Jews or Christians themselves, as I've said previously.


Then you can give examples of Muslims who think of Islam as an idea, right?


I'll be right on that. But I was under the impression Mohammed was merely a prophet. Just a guy. You can't question people? That's odd.

Examples, please, of Muslims questioning the history of Mohammed and of the Quran.

Then you can give examples of Muslims who think of Islam as an idea, right?

It's not a question of whether or not individual muslims think of islam as an idea, although I imagine about any reformer would do. Islam is an idea. It's not integral. If I yank the idea out of you, you're not going to explode or drop dead or something.

Examples, please, of Muslims questioning the history of Mohammed and of the Quran.

Again: I imagine any reformer would do. I might look such people up, and I might not. Who knows?

It's not a question of whether or not individual muslims think of islam as an idea, although I imagine about any reformer would do. Islam is an idea. It's not integral. If I yank the idea out of you, you're not going to explode or drop dead or something.

Again: I imagine any reformer would do. I might look such people up, and I might not. Who knows?

It would be interesting to meet a Muslim without the idea of Islam who questions the history of the Prophet and the Quran, methinks.

I eagerly await your revelations.

But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.;)

Some time ago there was a smallish to-do about the nature of the "Flying Imams" case in the US, where a gang of gits was removed from an aircraft for acting in a suspicous manner; ultimately and unsurprisingly it was found that one of them had some substantial connectsion to terrorism. The suspicion - quite rightly - was that it was another provocation tied to the good old Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), that quaint little Muslim Brotherhood-founded, terrorist-associated, Hamas-criticism-negative quietly islamic supremacist outlet run by guys who think islam "is meant to dominate, not be dominated", among other things.

Now while I've essentially ended discussion on the issue (:) ) there's some reflective news:



The new phase that we seem to be headed for - or, rather, that some parties, such as CAIR, seem to be trying to head us for - is of the crushing of the rights and ability of individual citizens to report suspicious findings. In other words, to legislate their eyes closed. Self-censorship. Obviously, that's a bad thing, as the above case proves. Yet now why would CAIR, well, care about self-censorship? Given their history, I imagine the answer is obvious. CAIR makes a great deal of noise about the supposed suppression of islamic rights in the US - cases which, in fact, end up being more about their supremacist agenda than anything else.

(I wonder how CAIR might feel about any of the following items of actual religious discrimination:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9026&size=A
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152825471&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015712.php

Meh. I don't really wonder.)

But the question is: how to make reasonable limits on the ability of organizations like CAIR to attempt to muzzle citizens and thereby create security gaps under the auspice (ironically enough) of a system designed to protect the rights of minorities? Obviously one cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, no matter how repugnant the bathwater has become.

Geoffedit

It would be interesting to meet a Muslim without the idea of Islam who questions the history of the Prophet and the Quran, methinks.

I eagerly await your revelations.

But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.;)

Yes, of course: because I never follow through on my evidentiary chain.

:rolleyes: Oooooh, got me that time. Not.

Oh, man. I wish I'd seen it. Hilarious.

Yes, I can see how a grown man making a little girl cry is always hilarious.:rolleyes:

So you support the notion of hassling and scaring innocent families going about their business do you? I wonder if your reaction would have been the same if someone did the same to you and your family? Would you find it amusing if someone scared your wife and children to the point where your children started crying?

I never thought you would support bullying and worst of all, racial bullying.

Why, I certainly did tell him what he did was wrong. But he said the father was giving him the evil eye, like, and he excused himself on that basis.
Your friend his lucky. Had it been me, I would have either called the police and reported that someone was threateningly stalking my family, or I would have kicked him in the nuts and then told the police I felt he posed a danger to my children. Your friend is lucky he bullied someone who was polite.

It's wrong to stare at people.
No, it is rude. Your friend should get some manners.

The really ironic thing about Ghost's whole little argument is that he never bothered to address anything in the thread, or even my links below about actual discrimination. It's more important that his tribe wins out. Sad.
His actions were equally idiotic and moronic.

Although he is not the one gleefully recounting making a little girl cry. You are.

But you go further and blame the mother. Maybe she was stressed and scared that some strange man was acting that way around her children. I know I would have been.

A societally responsible person would have smiled and just cooperated with whatever was to come, right?
Ermm no. A societally responsible person would have done what it took to ensure their family's safety. As I said, if some weird man started acting that way around me and my children, I would have either called the police and reported being harrassed and threatened, or I would have kicked him in the nuts and then advised the police it was because I felt so threatened and harrassed.

All right, all right, O very well: I can see my little experiment is at an end when Bells descends to chew me out. The fact of the matter is that I do not have any such friend who so did, nor would I support any who so did. In short: it was a farce. A ruse.

A SHAM.

Basically it was designed to cull Ghost's quieter opinions to the surface, and it performed far better than it was supposed to. ;) Now it was indeed false and that is a shame and an insult to the good people of SciForums, and for that I apologize. I realize of course that most people here saw through it, Sam being among those. I know Bells missed it, and for which she may kick me in the nuts herself, as I'm given to understand is a pastime of hers; she is certainly excused on the basis of extreme unction, or near-extreme, anyway. (PS: hope you're feeling better.) But - BUT: I point out that there is a certain sense of skewed moral responsibility among certain apologists that it is quite right and acceptable to harass people based on what they call illegitimate fears, and not right for others to do the same but in reverse. I was actually quite close to a terrorist event myself within the last five years (the details of which I will not indicate, since airline manifests are probably not that difficult to get hold of) and so the issue of this very sort of nonsense is also a personal one. It is unfair to try and frighten innocent people with supremacist nonsense in the name of any God, islamic or otherwise. It is unfair and malicious for the Syrians to have done so, and for the Flying Imams to have done so, and would be unfair and malicious for my would-have-done-so "friend", would he have done so, or even be in the habit of wearing suits (which, most of my friends do not), or even be a real person. I do explicitly NOT approve of such behaviour, but I wished to test my suspicions.

And so I concocted on the spot a small test - a most tiny of examinations to divulge the personality of apologia. And: it did. Quite a success, surprisingly. Ghost's argument of tiny differentiation was that there were no children in his admittedly probably ficticious scenario. But that's not the point. There are always children around; the issue is whether or not public scrutiny is acceptable. To apologists such as CAIR, or othersame with thin egos and easily bruised feelings, obviously public scrutiny is not liked, although probably for differing reasons. But the rationale is that public scrutiny is needed, has prevented deaths already. The culling of such scrutiny, I think, is a wrongful thing: and public stunts designed to legally obstruct or societally inhibit such scrutiny is also wrong. In extremis (or more accurately, selon moi, in actu for CAIR and the like, such efforts represent one of the most reprehensible efforts to disrupt the most basal protection a society has - its own citizenry. In actu, for most people - including Ghost - it probably represents damaging dullardy. Which is bad enough.

So: to sum up. Not a real situation, but a really useful scenario. Not real support, but really good support of my tentative hypothesis.

Not really fair, I admit. But fairly real.

Good day.

Geoff

All right, all right, O very well: I can see my little experiment is at an end when Bells descends to chew me out. The fact of the matter is that I do not have any such friend who so did, nor would I support any who so did. In short: it was a farce. A ruse.

A SHAM.

Basically it was designed to cull Ghost's quieter opinions to the surface, and it performed far better than it was supposed to. ;) Now it was indeed false and that is a shame and an insult to the good people of SciForums, and for that I apologize. I realize of course that most people here saw through it, Sam being among those. I know Bells missed it, and for which she may kick me in the nuts herself, as I'm given to understand is a pastime of hers; she is certainly excused on the basis of extreme unction, or near-extreme, anyway. (PS: hope you're feeling better.) But - BUT: I point out that there is a certain sense of skewed moral responsibility among certain apologists that it is quite right and acceptable to harass people based on what they call illegitimate fears, and not right for others to do the same but in reverse. I was actually quite close to a terrorist event myself within the last five years (the details of which I will not indicate, since airline manifests are probably not that difficult to get hold of) and so the issue of this very sort of nonsense is also a personal one. It is unfair to try and frighten innocent people with supremacist nonsense in the name of any God, islamic or otherwise. It is unfair and malicious for the Syrians to have done so, and for the Flying Imams to have done so, and would be unfair and malicious for my would-have-done-so "friend", would he have done so, or even be in the habit of wearing suits (which, most of my friends do not), or even be a real person. I do explicitly NOT approve of such behaviour, but I wished to test my suspicions.

And so I concocted on the spot a small test - a most tiny of examinations to divulge the personality of apologia. And: it did. Quite a success, surprisingly. Ghost's argument of tiny differentiation was that there were no children in his admittedly probably ficticious scenario. But that's not the point. There are always children around; the issue is whether or not public scrutiny is acceptable. To apologists such as CAIR, or othersame with thin egos and easily bruised feelings, obviously public scrutiny is not liked, although probably for differing reasons. But the rationale is that public scrutiny is needed, has prevented deaths already. The culling of such scrutiny, I think, is a wrongful thing: and public stunts designed to legally obstruct or societally inhibit such scrutiny is also wrong. In extremis (or more accurately, selon moi, in actu for CAIR and the like, such efforts represent one of the most reprehensible efforts to disrupt the most basal protection a society has - its own citizenry. In actu, for most people - including Ghost - it probably represents damaging dullardy. Which is bad enough.

So: to sum up. Not a real situation, but a really useful scenario. Not real support, but really good support of my tentative hypothesis.

Not really fair, I admit. But fairly real.

Good day.

GeoffHardcore racist. Sad.

At imminent risk of severe nut-kicking, and sorry to have distressed Bells, I add these addenda:

Yes, I can see how a grown man making a little girl cry is always hilarious.:rolleyes:

So you support the notion of hassling and scaring innocent families going about their business do you?...I never thought you would support bullying and worst of all, racial bullying.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I absolutely don't support that.

Your friend his lucky. Had it been me, I would have either called the police and reported that someone was threateningly stalking my family, or I would have kicked him in the nuts

I have no doubt you would, Rambette, and I apologize for raising your ire. Please spare my own nuts and those of my imaginary friend. Mea culpa.

No, it is rude. Your friend should get some manners.

I agree that such an individual would be irreparably rude, idiotic and moronic.

Although he is not the one gleefully recounting making a little girl cry. You are.

Again: I would never be gleeful over making little girls cry. Unless I'd stolen their cookies or something.

But you go further and blame the mother. Maybe she was stressed and scared that some strange man was acting that way around her children. I know I would have been.

Absolutely: I would never seriously fault such a person. This was, as all the rest, intended to draw parallel with Ghost's cock-and-bull story.

if some weird man started acting that way around me and my children, I would have either called the police and reported being harrassed and threatened, or I would have kicked him in the nuts and then advised the police it was because I felt so threatened and harrassed.

Again: quite reasonable. I'm given to understand a good nut-kicking is less innocuous in Australia, of course. Dwarf-throwing, too.

Anyway: I reiterate that such behaviour is wrong. Not merely in imaginary friends of Geoff, but also in other people less inclined to an egalitarian view of things.

Best,

Unimaginary Geoff

Hardcore racist. Sad.

And, again, Genji, if you can demonstrate how the above is racist, please do. I'm certainly aware how making light of the Holocaust is bigoted, of course; which you've done, time and again.

Liar liar pants on fire...:eek:


Let me make it absolutely clear that I absolutely don't support that.

One would hope not.

I have no doubt you would, Rambette, and I apologize for raising your ire. Please spare my own nuts and those of my imaginary friend. Mea culpa.
Dey dwew furst bwood..

I agree that such an individual would be irreparably rude, idiotic and moronic.
Hmmmm..

Sadly, some people do act like that. Take our friendly little Casper as an example.

Again: quite reasonable. I'm given to understand a good nut-kicking is less innocuous in Australia, of course. Dwarf-throwing, too.
Be thankful. I once jammed my car keys into the nether regions of a date who thought it would be fun to try to push me into the back of a car once.

And it is dwarf 'chucking'.

I know Bells missed it, and for which she may kick me in the nuts herself, as I'm given to understand is a pastime of hers; she is certainly excused on the basis of extreme unction, or near-extreme, anyway. (PS: hope you're feeling better.)
Damn you!

I admit, I was fooled. And yes, the improvement is slow, but it is an ongoing process.:)

I point out that there is a certain sense of skewed moral responsibility among certain apologists that it is quite right and acceptable to harass people based on what they call illegitimate fears, and not right for others to do the same but in reverse.
It is never right. Not for any side of any equation.

There are always children around; the issue is whether or not public scrutiny is acceptable.
There are varying degrees of public scrutiny. Some extreme, as seen by your imaginary friend (you should name him George). Sometimes it can and does go too far. When aspects of security such as racial profiling are put in place, it can and does discriminate. When people of Middle Eastern appearance find themselves harrassed for no reason, other than their appearance, things have gone too far. In the case of the flying Imams, the people on that plane were right to voice their fears as the Imams behaved in a way that was intended to terrify. We should always be aware of our surroundings and those around us, not because of the threat of terrorism, but for our own personal safety. However, we must also learn to not over-react at every little thing. Doing so will result in 'their' having won.

But the rationale is that public scrutiny is needed, has prevented deaths already. The culling of such scrutiny, I think, is a wrongful thing: and public stunts designed to legally obstruct or societally inhibit such scrutiny is also wrong.
It would be insane to say that public scrutiny is not needed. It has always been needed. You look when you cross the road don't you? You become suspicious if you enter a bank and find someone walking in with a motorcycle helmet on their heads. Everyone should be aware of their surroundings at all times for their own personal safety. If you notice something suspicious, report it. However reports should only be made if there is indeed something suspicious. Reporting someone just because they are of a particular race or religion does not cut it. I am reminded of the stories of police officers pulling over black people if they are found to be driving a new car. Do not, for example, rush at a person you think might be a terrorist because he is boarding a plane with a backpack on his back thinking it contains a bomb just because he is of Middle Eastern appearance (as an example). As I said before, there is public scrutiny and there is paranoia. The latter can and does lead to situations of harrassment and racial hatred.

Liar liar pants on fire...:eek:

But better than a kick in the nuts. :spank:

One would hope not. Dey dwew furst bwood..

Yes, ma'am! No, ma'am! I can't believe you just 'Stalloned' that.

Sadly, some people do act like that. Take our friendly little Casper as an example.

This is true.

Be thankful. I once jammed my car keys into the nether regions of a date who thought it would be fun to try to push me into the back of a car once.

Tell me, have you ever heard of a band called "Genitorturer"? I think you should look these guys up. I suppose the nether regions aren't the genitals, obviously, and I hope I don't earn a kick in the nuts.

And it is dwarf 'chucking'.

I'm sorry. I had no intent to impugn Australia, yourself, or your dwarf 'chucking', beer-swilling, crocodile-wrestling, nut-kicking culture.

Damn you!

I admit, I was fooled. And yes, the improvement is slow, but it is an ongoing process.:)

Hang in there. It's going to get better, to the point you'll never notice you ever had it, I swear. You know this. It'll be ok.

There are varying degrees of public scrutiny. Some extreme, as seen by your imaginary friend (you should name him George)...We should always be aware of our surroundings and those around us, not because of the threat of terrorism, but for our own personal safety. However, we must also learn to not over-react at every little thing. Doing so will result in 'their' having won.

George has noted your points, and promises to act accordingly.

Do not, for example, rush at a person you think might be a terrorist because he is boarding a plane with a backpack on his back thinking it contains a bomb just because he is of Middle Eastern appearance (as an example).

Not again after that first time. I swear. And I hope someday that Sanjaya is able to forgive me. But preferably not in song.

As I said before, there is public scrutiny and there is paranoia. The latter can and does lead to situations of harrassment and racial hatred.

Agreed: there is a level too far. There is caution, and overcaution.

And in other areas that go to far, try this link on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0

The fourth one is the best.

Geoff

Yes, ma'am! No, ma'am! I can't believe you just 'Stalloned' that.


I had to ask my husband what the silly line was..

:bawl:

Not again after that first time. I swear. And I hope someday that Sanjaya is able to forgive me. But preferably not in song.
Sad when it physically hurts to laugh lol.

Agreed: there is a level too far. There is caution, and overcaution.
Unfortunately, too many react with over-caution.

Although the following did have me chuckling.

A SUSPICIOUS package which sparked a bomb scare and evacuation of a New Zealand mail centre was later identified as a harmless sex aid, a report said yesterday.

An airport X-ray machine alerted staff about suspicious wiring in the parcel from China on Tuesday and it was placed in an explosives safe overnight.

Emergency services were only notified the next morning when they decided to evacuate the mail centre near Auckland airport.

The parcel was later identified as a sex aid, the New Zealand Herald reported.

The incident has prompted a Customs investigation into why emergency services were not immediately contacted, leaving a potential bomb in a safe overnight.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21589702-13762,00.html)

Have to love the Kiwi's!

'We think it's a bomb, so we'll put it in the safe and deal with it tomorrow... oh.. it was a dildo anyway'.. lol..

I wonder if the manufacturers of the 'sex aid' will now advertise their product as providing an explosive feeling..;)

lmao

Kiwis are proof that Tazis can swim. No wonder your husband wants to carve out a kingdom there; they must be easy to rule.

...unless you're a Tazi. Then I take it back. Look, just don't kick me in the nuts, all right?

All right, all right, O very well: I can see my little experiment is at an end when Bells descends to chew me out. The fact of the matter is that I do not have any such friend who so did, nor would I support any who so did. In short: it was a farce. A ruse.

A SHAM.

Basically it was designed to cull Ghost's quieter opinions to the surface, and it performed far better than it was supposed to. ;) Now it was indeed false and that is a shame and an insult to the good people of SciForums, and for that I apologize. I realize of course that most people here saw through it, Sam being among those. I know Bells missed it, and for which she may kick me in the nuts herself, as I'm given to understand is a pastime of hers; she is certainly excused on the basis of extreme unction, or near-extreme, anyway. (PS: hope you're feeling better.) But - BUT: I point out that there is a certain sense of skewed moral responsibility among certain apologists that it is quite right and acceptable to harass people based on what they call illegitimate fears, and not right for others to do the same but in reverse. I was actually quite close to a terrorist event myself within the last five years (the details of which I will not indicate, since airline manifests are probably not that difficult to get hold of) and so the issue of this very sort of nonsense is also a personal one. It is unfair to try and frighten innocent people with supremacist nonsense in the name of any God, islamic or otherwise. It is unfair and malicious for the Syrians to have done so, and for the Flying Imams to have done so, and would be unfair and malicious for my would-have-done-so "friend", would he have done so, or even be in the habit of wearing suits (which, most of my friends do not), or even be a real person. I do explicitly NOT approve of such behaviour, but I wished to test my suspicions.

And so I concocted on the spot a small test - a most tiny of examinations to divulge the personality of apologia. And: it did. Quite a success, surprisingly. Ghost's argument of tiny differentiation was that there were no children in his admittedly probably ficticious scenario. But that's not the point. There are always children around; the issue is whether or not public scrutiny is acceptable. To apologists such as CAIR, or othersame with thin egos and easily bruised feelings, obviously public scrutiny is not liked, although probably for differing reasons. But the rationale is that public scrutiny is needed, has prevented deaths already. The culling of such scrutiny, I think, is a wrongful thing: and public stunts designed to legally obstruct or societally inhibit such scrutiny is also wrong. In extremis (or more accurately, selon moi, in actu for CAIR and the like, such efforts represent one of the most reprehensible efforts to disrupt the most basal protection a society has - its own citizenry. In actu, for most people - including Ghost - it probably represents damaging dullardy. Which is bad enough.

So: to sum up. Not a real situation, but a really useful scenario. Not real support, but really good support of my tentative hypothesis.

Not really fair, I admit. But fairly real.

Good day.

Geoff

So you’re a liar. Just like Ayaan Hirsi.

Hey GeoffP, I don’t like liars.

Manipulating other people’s posts, posting articles from a rabid anti-Muslim hate site and trying to pass them off as reasonable is one thing, but outright lying. It’s pathetic.

It's ok, Ghost. I pretty much got your number on the hypocrisy issue. Thanks for posting.

You cannot compare the two situations. I was being harassed due to my appearance, because of my skin colour. We had passed through all the security checks, there were no delays, nothing like that. The fact that I'm British should have helped alleviate any fear as well.

If guys are going to try and intimidate me just because of the colour of my skin, don’t expect me to go up to justify myself to them, tell them where I'm going, why, what I have in my bag etc. I'm not going to be pressurised into doing things like that, no way, I'm not going to be caged in like some animal. If those guys think I'm a terrorist, let them go and call the authorities, but they don't, they just stare. If they thought I was about to kill them, they should have contacted the authorities, but they didn't.

In that situation, I'd love to make them think I actually was a terrorist. Its funny, and I’d happily do it again.

As I told you, I assessed the situation, I scrutinised the environment and took the best course of action to achieve my goals. The children there were doing what children do, playing with eachother, mothers were doing what mothers do etc. I would never cross that line.

It's ok, Ghost. I pretty much got your number on the hypocrisy issue. Thanks for posting.

Liar. :rolleyes:

His actions were equally idiotic and moronic.

rotfl. They may have been idiotic and moronic, but no where near the level of GeoffP's 'fantasy suited & booted boy-friend'

From the article:

What I saw on Northwest Flight 327 was a group of Syrian men act as though they were going to hijack the plane. The men blocked the aircraft aisles, knocked over a passenger and spent so much time in the aircraft bathrooms that one Syrian emerged covered in toilet chemicals. As the flight was about to land, seven of the men stood in the aisle and used the toilets while the leader read from a small red book. One of the men then made a slashing motion across his throat and mouthed the word, 'no.'

Its all a matter of perception right? some people (Americans) absolutely shit themselves when they hear all that scare-mongering on Fox news. They get really paranoid and that. Okay, now lets analyse the incident:

What I saw on Northwest Flight 327 was a group of Syrian men act as though they were going to hijack the plane.

Okay.

The men blocked the aircraft aisles

How? were they simply walking down the aisles, hence 'blocking' them? or did they just stand there so no one could get through? Did you trying saying 'excuse me'?

knocked over a passenger

How many Syrians were there? they knocked over a passenger, ever heard of accidentally bumping into someone. Has this person ever been to a place where alot of people are trying to get someplace? How would knocking over a single passenger help in hijacking a plane?

spent so much time in the aircraft bathrooms

Who hasn't? :rolleyes:

one Syrian emerged covered in toilet chemicals.

Whoops! accidents do happen.

As the flight was about to land, seven of the men stood in the aisle and used the toilets

Okay... do planes normally get hijacked when they’re about to land?

the leader read from a small red book.

The leader? they had a leader? who the hell does she know? and what’s up with this 'red book' rotfl

One of the men then made a slashing motion across his throat and mouthed the word, 'no.'

rotfl. Maybe he meant, "No, Abdul, I don't want any more jaffa cakes" He could have meant anything. Hahaha.

What a joke. Why does it seem as though she is the only one complaining. How many others were on the flight? Huh? What have they got to say?

So, let's sum up.

You think scaring innocent people is wrong, yet you are ok with scaring people. The fact of your being British is, obviously, meaningless, unless you've forgotten this supposed brother who just missed being blown up in the 7/11 attacks. You say you'd never cross this imaginary women and kids line you have, and imagine that your whole diatribe was only directed at the men, as if they're somehow in isolation from their families or something.

The woman in the article you criticize obviously was frightened by their hostility, yet instead of agreeing that their scaring her was wrong, you attack her. You pretend not to get the throat-slashing maneuver. You don't get that the flight crew themselves were alarmed by their behaviour, or you pretend not to. You don't accept that they were spending an unusual time in the aircraft bathroom (just because you choose that locate to whack off doesn't mean everyone does, you know) and that the authorities consider that it was indeed a test or "dry run", because, after all, you think terrorists should be punished but accept no official definitions of terrorism, which is basically pretty supremacist. So for you, it's all good, because ultimately you don't care, although you make a pretense of law and order. Yet you don't feel that anyone charged with terrorism is guilty, and apparently that anyone should be charged.

I made this thread just to see what it might cull out of the woodwork. And it worked, though I then had to use a pretend story to get you to poke your little head out.

So who is the greater pretender, Ghost: you or I? :rolleyes:

Geoff

I made this thread just to see what it might cull out of the woodwork. And it worked, though I then had to use a pretend story to get you to poke your little head out.

So who is the greater pretender, Ghost: you or I? :rolleyes:

Geoff


Dear Geoff,

Hows it going?
it really saddens me that you motives for this thread were the above.

Luckily when i read your pretend story on the first page about the guy on the cell phone (i think that was the one was not it?!???) and the family, i had just come back out of a heavy meeting or something and did not have the mental capacity to assimulate what you wre going on about, or else perhapsd you would have baited me in a similar fashon.

Geoff what have you acheived by the thread then???

~~~~~~~~~~~
take it ezx
zak

That's hilarious. My friend, one time? He was standing around some obviously muslim family at the airport; they were talking together, minding their own business. Usually he dresses up in a suit when he travels, so he decides to give them the business.

He flips the shades on and starts pretending to talk into his cellphone while staring at them and walking past them or near them a lot. He starts off the call with an audible "Hi. Is this Airport Security?" and then starts whispering. Well the dad is just glaring at him and his wife is trying to hush the kids, and make them sit quietly - total terror written on her face. Anyway, the family is freaking out and eventually the little girl is crying too because she doesn't know what's going on and her parents are flipping, right? Then he walks right up to them and the husband is just staring pure hate at him and so my friend asks "is there a problem, sir?" Apparently it was like the guy just switched right into humble mode. "No sir, no problem, sir."

Oh, man. I wish I'd seen it. Hilarious.
That's a good one. It's the exact flip side of Ghost's little joke. What's good for the goose....

Dear Geoff,

Hows it going?
it really saddens me that you motives for this thread were the above.

Luckily when i read your pretend story on the first page about the guy on the cell phone (i think that was the one was not it?!???) and the family, i had just come back out of a heavy meeting or something and did not have the mental capacity to assimulate what you wre going on about, or else perhapsd you would have baited me in a similar fashon.

Geoff what have you acheived by the thread then???

~~~~~~~~~~~
take it ezx
zak

Not the entire thread, obviously. Call it a side objective. The original post still remains: how to deal with the radicals without impugning civil rights.

I'm sorry you were saddened. I will send some tissues.

So, let's sum up.

You think scaring innocent people is wrong, yet you are ok with scaring people. The fact of your being British is, obviously, meaningless, unless you've forgotten this supposed brother who just missed being blown up in the 7/11 attacks. You say you'd never cross this imaginary women and kids line you have, and imagine that your whole diatribe was only directed at the men, as if they're somehow in isolation from their families or something.

You're right GeoffP, you would know wouldn't you, I mean you were there right? You've known me for quite a while now as well, you know exactly how my mind works. :rolleyes:

I'm 100% okay with scaring people that hassle me. I think its brilliant, I plan on doing it again whenever the situation arises, I won’t tolerate being hassled due the colour of my skin. Scaring innocent people that have done nothing wrong is a completely different issue. You seem to have missed my posts completely, you're just misrepresenting what I've said - then again, that is better than outright lying.

The woman in the article you criticize obviously was frightened by their hostility, yet instead of agreeing that their scaring her was wrong, you attack her. You pretend not to get the throat-slashing maneuver. You don't get that the flight crew themselves were alarmed by their behaviour, or you pretend not to. You don't accept that they were spending an unusual time in the aircraft bathroom (just because you choose that locate to whack off doesn't mean everyone does, you know) and that the authorities consider that it was indeed a test or "dry run", because, after all, you think terrorists should be punished but accept no official definitions of terrorism, which is basically pretty supremacist. So for you, it's all good, because ultimately you don't care, although you make a pretense of law and order. Yet you don't feel that anyone charged with terrorism is guilty, and apparently that anyone should be charged.

One woman was scared. Big deal? Where were the other mateys on the plane? did they have similar concerns to this woman? or were they all asleep? How come no other guys are saying the same thing as this woman? huh? to me she seems super paranoid, then again, she is American.

You don't get that the flight crew themselves were alarmed by their behaviour, or you pretend not to.

They were alarmed. Okay, was that afterwards? did they even know what was happening while they were flying? Seriously, what the fuck happened on that plane!

and that the authorities consider that it was indeed a test or "dry run", because, after all, you think terrorists should be punished but accept no official definitions of terrorism, which is basically pretty supremacist.

The authorities consider it to be a 'dry run'! so what, those 'authorities' are renowned for 'getting it wrong'. I can never take what American authorities say at face value, I can never accept them as truth. Only an idiot would. Now you say, this terrorist is stalking woman? some terrorist huh?

Yet you don't feel that anyone charged with terrorism is guilty, and apparently that anyone should be charged.

Strawman.

You're right GeoffP, you would know wouldn't you, I mean you were there right? You've known me for quite a while now as well, you know exactly how my mind works.

Pretty much, yeah.

I'm 100% okay with scaring people that hassle me. I think its brilliant, I plan on doing it again whenever the situation arises, I won’t tolerate being hassled due the colour of my skin. Scaring innocent people that have done nothing wrong is a completely different issue.

Let me express this clearly for your comprehension: STARING AT YOU OR BEING CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY IS NOT HASSLING.

One woman was scared. Big deal? Where were the other mateys on the plane? did they have similar concerns to this woman? or were they all asleep? How come no other guys are saying the same thing as this woman? huh? to me she seems super paranoid, then again, she is American.

So you missed the whole crew thing, and the other couple that was being made nervous, and you end off with an actual nationality slam. Good job, well rebutted.

They were alarmed. Okay, was that afterwards? did they even know what was happening while they were flying?

Did you even read the article? Ridiculous. "What happened on that airplane". What you mean is "I don't like how it sounds so I'm going to cast ignorance over the whole procedure". Pathetic.

The authorities consider it to be a 'dry run'! so what, those 'authorities' are renowned for 'getting it wrong'. I can never take what American authorities say at face value, I can never accept them as truth. Only an idiot would.

Thankyou: this was exactly my thesis regarding you. You say you want terrorists "locked up", but you won't accept that anyone is arrested or accused of terrorism. I wonder how one proceeds then. Maybe it could be only people that MPACUK thinks are terrorists. Although I think even Bakri wouldn't make their list.

Now you say, this terrorist is stalking woman? some terrorist huh?

Willful ignorance and leading. You are attempting to confuse the issue, or else throwing around your own ignorance with hysterics, which is basically what you always do: the inevitable plea to general humanity, or unassociated specifics. Ludicrous.

Strawman.

Actually, that strawman looks just like you. Possibly a bit brighter, of course.

Geoff

Pretty much, yeah.

LMFAO!!! :D

Let me express this clearly for your comprehension: STARING AT YOU OR BEING CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY IS NOT HASSLING.

You seem to have the comprehension problem my good man. I had passed all the security checks, just like everyone else, had been through the metal detector blah blah. Now tell me, since you were probably there, how come those guys didn't call security? if they were scared for their lives, why did they not do anything about it? huh?

So you missed the whole crew thing, and the other couple that was being made nervous, and you end off with an actual nationality slam. Good job, well rebutted.

The other couple that were nervous? how many people were on the plane?!?! what a fucking joke. How many people made a complaint, how come no-one did anything to subdue the Syrians (since it appeared they were going to ‘hijack the plane’)? If I was on a plane and someone was acting suspiciously, and I thought they were gonna do some crazy shit, I would have fucking nailed them, so why didn't that happen in this case? I remember that case about the shoe bomber, he lit a match or something and then some guys overpowered him. You realise why this particular story is so hard to take seriously?

Did you even read the article? Ridiculous. "What happened on that airplane". What you mean is "I don't like how it sounds so I'm going to cast ignorance over the whole procedure". Pathetic.

I read some of it. I'm actually doing some work.

Thankyou: this was exactly my thesis regarding you. You say you want terrorists "locked up", but you won't accept that anyone is arrested or accused of terrorism. I wonder how one proceeds then. Maybe it could be only people that MPACUK thinks are terrorists. Although I think even Bakri wouldn't make their list.

LMFAO, another strawman. How were those guys terrorists, for fuck sake tell me. I won't accept random mateys being arrested for no fucking reason and then released without charge, civil societies do not do that. Omar Bakri was a clown, a charlatan, he had a big mouth, I'm over the moon that he is no longer in this country, but to call him a terrorist is silly. As far as I know, he celebrated terrorist attacks, called for more etc. but never actually did anything. I would love it if he had been put in prison, believe me, but on what charge? as I said, civil societies have laws, stuff we cannot bypass.

Willful ignorance and leading. You are attempting to confuse the issue, or else throwing around your own ignorance with hysterics, which is basically what you always do: the inevitable plea to general humanity, or unassociated specifics. Ludicrous.

So the guys were terrorists? :eek: where is they now? whats the situation?

You seem to have the comprehension problem my good man. I had passed all the security checks, just like everyone else, had been through the metal detector blah blah.

The 9/11 hijackers also went through a metal detector, my comprehensionally challenged friend.

Now tell me, since you were probably there, how come those guys didn't call security?

Because they realized in the end that you were a stringy little git?

The other couple that were nervous? how many people were on the plane?!?!

I don't know how many more were upset by the provocations. Maybe you should buy her book.

how come no-one did anything to subdue the Syrians (since it appeared they were going to ‘hijack the plane’)? If I was on a plane and someone was acting suspiciously, and I thought they were gonna do some crazy shit, I would have fucking nailed them, so why didn't that happen in this case? I remember that case about the shoe bomber, he lit a match or something and then some guys overpowered him. You realise why this particular story is so hard to take seriously?

I realize why you are so hard to take seriously: no sense of reasonability. As Bells pointed out, jumping the gun and wrestling people to the ground could indeed be considered bigoted. But you seem ironically to want to go one further and disallow public scrutiny altogether.

LMFAO, another strawman. How were those guys terrorists, for fuck sake tell me. I won't accept random mateys being arrested for no fucking reason and then released without charge, civil societies do not do that.

Sorry, can't say. Classified. ;) I suggest you buy her book.

Thanks again for contributing to the experiment. It was illuminating.

Geoff

Dear Geoff,

Thank you for your response

Not the entire thread, obviously. Call it a side objective.



geoff, you say above that it was not the entire objective of the thread but in your post before the response to me you say the below.



I made this thread just to see what it might cull out of the woodwork. And it worked, though I then had to use a pretend story to get you to poke your little head out.

So who is the greater pretender, Ghost: you or I? :rolleyes:

Geoff
Are you Sure it was a side issue Geoff? You have to be wary geoff, some people may think its starting if its not already an obsession of yours!!!
We would not want people to think your views are getting bent by any perceived obsession now would we?!?!?


I'm sorry you were saddened. I will send some tissues.

If you could hurry along with the tissues that would be nice, as i may need some more soon.


The original post still remains: how to deal with the radicals without impugning civil rights.

.

Now how to do deal with the warped minded vile creatures who committe terrorist acts.

Basically a terrorist should not be allowed on a plane fullstop or anywhere they can committ an attrocity. But of course our intelegence is so poor we dont know who they are. So this is what i suggest.

#### use the Uk as a Test######

The MI5/Mi6 - should get some more muslims on their payroll, like the normal muslims who dont have any deranged ideas, or pay people to convert to Islam so they can get involved in the mosques (not sure whether that would woprk, but paying normakl muslims should), you know spys!! have them in every mosque, they can then report back their findings, obviously some of these agents would also have to appear quite radical, so as to get right in amomngst it so to speak.

Being a muslim i have no objection to tactics like this for the following reaons:

1) the intellegence service will know who the radicals are.
2) this will hopefully stop any attrocities being committed
3) Innocent Non muslims and muslims would not be killed in any attrocities, as they will be stop before committed
4) if the attrocities are not committed then the normal muslims will benefit as they will not be subject to revenge attacks and other prejudices casued by these imberciles.
5) i cant remember what i was thinking about writting for number 5 perhaps it will come back later

Alternatviely, we will have to rely on the leaders of the mosque or the older people to grass up the radicals.

Basically though if the MI6 approached me to do the above and paid me the equivalent (more of copurse would be better) of what i get now, then i would seriously think about doing it. i dont give a shit about grassing up some deranged imberciles, espicially if they are muslim as these guys are a filithy stain (for want of a more powerfull word) on my religion anyway. If i had the same infiormation about a non muslim planning to commit murder or whatever, i would not hisitate to contact the authorities.

~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

The 9/11 hijackers also went through a metal detector, my comprehensionally challenged friend.

So you're saying those guys were right in hassling me? Yes/No :eek:

But haven't security checks Worldwide been beefed up since 9/11?

Because they realized in the end that you were a stringy little git?

Hey, lets not get personal. Tell me, if they thought I was a threat why didn't they call security? Why? If they didn’t call the authorities wouldn’t that mean their hassling of me was unjustified and shameful?

I don't know how many more were upset by the provocations. Maybe you should buy her book.

So she's releasing a book! :eek: The plot thickens!

Seriously, was she just a super paranoid drama queen or what? did the other passengers actually say anything? How much money has she made?

I realize why you are so hard to take seriously: no sense of reasonability. As Bells pointed out, jumping the gun and wrestling people to the ground could indeed be considered bigoted. But you seem ironically to want to go one further and disallow public scrutiny altogether.

If I was on a plane and some guy was doing crazy shit I would fucking nail him/her. If I thought lives were at risk, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But that never happened with this particular case did it. It would seem as though only one person was fussed. And it would seem as though she’s made a tidy sum out of ‘incident’.

Sorry, can't say. Classified. I suggest you buy her book.

Thanks again for contributing to the experiment. It was illuminating.

So you have don’t really have anything say?

What have I learnt from this discussion. I've learnt that you have no qualms about lying, GeoffP is a liar, he is willing to deceive people to try and ‘prove’ something meaningless that no one gives a damn about.

Tell me, what the fuck happened on that plane??????????

Since you concede, I have no choice but to declare victory.

1-0

:D

So you're saying those guys were right in hassling me? Yes/No :eek:

No. But you were far, far wronger.

But haven't security checks Worldwide been beefed up since 9/11?

And I recall a flight - US Airways 1422 - that stopped a man for suspicious behaviour but let his bags on. So the system isn't perfect, is it? And it's bound to get less perfect because of the actions of the Flying Imams, and the Syrians, and all the rest.

Hey, lets not get personal. Tell me, if they thought I was a threat why didn't they call security? Why? If they didn’t call the authorities wouldn’t that mean their hassling of me was unjustified and shameful?

?? Already answered that one. No read?

Seriously, was she just a super paranoid drama queen or what? did the other passengers actually say anything? How much money has she made?

Do some research, or buy the book.

If I was on a plane and some guy was doing crazy shit I would fucking nail him/her. If I thought lives were at risk, I wouldn't give it a second thought.

Which could easily be overreaction, and get you thrown in jail. But give it a whirl.

So you have don’t really have anything say?

What have I learnt from this discussion. I've learnt that you have no qualms about lying, GeoffP is a liar, he is willing to deceive people to try and ‘prove’ something meaningless that no one gives a damn about.

Actually, people do care quite a bit about the kind of hypocrisy you engender. I like the "deceiver" bit; it has an amusingly al-Ahzar kind of ring to it.

Tell me, what the fuck happened on that plane??????????

Oh, man. Don't pretend you can't read now. Listen, I have a question. When you were acting like a stringy little git at the airport, who did you really scare? You can't make me believe there were no women or children around who were startled at your ridiculousness. You have no proof of any of your statements. Tell me, what the fuck happened in that airport??????????

Since you concede, I have no choice but to declare victory.

Of course. I concede it for myself.

12-0 for Geoff is the count thus far.

Geoff

Interesting ideas Zak. I imagine that MI5 is doing something of the sort now. I think we're more dealing with public scrutiny though.

Obsession? I have my issue, and not enough time to deal with everything.

So you're saying those guys were right in hassling me? Yes/No

No.

Thats all I wanted to hear.

Thank you very much!!! :D

Goodnite.

And you were wronger for what you did.

Nighty night.

I was interested in Ghost's rabid hate for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and also interestingly I stumbled on this item:

Islamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali’s attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, “Infidel,” and movie, “Submission,” are “poisonous and unjustified” and create dissension in their community.

Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders’ concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents.

Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.

“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added.

“If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment,” he said. “It’s a very merciful religion if you try to understand it.”

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/print_503977.html

And if you don't? Well. You know.

And what basis does this imbecile have for the summary judgement of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Is she even a citizen of Somalia anymore? What would he do if the country he's living in now - the US - had sharia? What does El Bayly think about islamic preachers defaming other religions, or complete atheists, back home? I'll bet he doesn't think they should be murdered.

Wow. That islamic jurisprudence thing is a real advance. Miraculous.

That's a wonderful cognitive dissonance he's got there...

Religion - it's got to go.