I know not all terrorists are Middle Eastern. Some are Cuban!!! But anyways even though the terrorists aren't all Middle Eastern I still believe they should be watched carefully.
I'm not argueing with an Israelian in this type of arguement. It just wouldn't make sense.
I call bull****, you're just trying to avoid another opponent.
To bad for them. Lots of people say private conversations out loud.
But lots of people also say private conversations quietly. You're saying that just because people are Middle Eastern, we should take away their right to speak quietly, or speak in their own language, or have a private conversation stay that way. And I say that's not fair, at all.
Your telling me Mexicans are particularly known for jumping people on a bus? Maybe their known for jumping people, but not on a bus.
When did I ever say that? I said "Bill THINKS", not "MEXICANS ARE KNOWN FOR". You need to pay more attention to what I'm actually saying instead of just fabricating stuff up out of thin air that you think you can argue with.
Oh and about the South part. I don't think that matters because even if the South are known for being racist they don't really attack black people, unlike Middle Easterners who blow people up.
No that doesn't matter because that doesn't have anything to do with violence, unlike Middle Easterners being terrorists, they blow things up. So what I'm saying is you watch people particularly known for something.
First time I heard of that. Anyways that doesn't matter. Read above.
The African American thing is way different, theres no need to be worried about African Americans dunking a basketball, and theres no threat of them if they just play basketball. Unlike possible terrorists in a plane.
Theres a difference there, in the case of the Middle Easterners theres a possibility of a hijacking so you should be weary about them.
*facepalm*
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY. It has nothing to do with whether the things they're known for are violent or not!
Fine. Okay, I'll play it your way since you clearly won't listen if I do anything else. So...
Catholic priests are known for being pedophiles, right? Does that mean that every time a Catholic priest whispers to another Catholic priest, we automatically assume that they are plotting some huge rapist-pedophile-Armageddon-assault? Does that mean that we can take away their right to have private conversations just because some other Catholic priests(who are NOT them) are pedophiles?
That IS a danger, is it not? There's a risk of ****. So should we bug every last Catholic priest's phone? Maybe we should put cameras up in the confession booths, and in the priests' homes, and hide little wires in the pews so we know what's happening in the Church. Wait! The Vatican is Italian and they speak Italian...we should force them to speak English or shut up, so that we know exactly what they're saying all the time! And if they don't, we arrest them!
What?!? That sounds like some thing I'd say. I don't know what your point was. But I agree the airline did have to choose whether to let them stay or leave. And I think they chose they better choice. Letting the Saudi Arabians leave.
You said that, it was a direct quote from your last argument and I forgot to put it in quotes.
Yes I agree with the lawsuit part that they would lose a lot more money, but only because of their decision of what to do after kicking off the Saudi Arabian. I've said this about five times now. But I'll say it again. I agree with the decision to kick off the Middle Easterners but not of the way the airline did after they kicked them off.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that they would still be liable to be sued.
And I thought we were talking about their fears more so than opinions. But your probably more or less right about us talking about their opinions.
Fears are opinions when they're based on biased opinionated and nonexistent fact.
I just said it wasn't very likely that they were going to commit a crime... I'll say it again. Even though it isn't very likely that they would commit a crime they should still be watched. And yes it is because they are Middle Eastern
Why should we watch them if it isn't very likely that they will commit a crime?
And *repeated facepalm* at "because they are Middle Eastern*. You're French, right?
I know you can't force them to, and that's a shame. If immigrants come to America knowing English slightly they should speak what ever they can in English and use hand gestures for everything else.
What if their relatives or friends are visiting, and they don't speak a word of English? Would the person be allowed to speak in their own native language then?
We can't arrest people, we can't kick people off, we can't fine people for speaking their own bloody language. It's a waste of time, it's a waste of money, and it also means we're throwing away one of our basic principles and rights.
Precisely. That's what they should do, but sadly that's illegal.
It's illegal for good bloody reason, they should be able to talk in whatever language they want.
How would it make everyone happy? The Middle Easterners would still be on the plane with the possibility of a hijacking and everyone would have to listen to lalalalalalala for hours. That sounds contentful eh?
AGGGHH.
YOU KEEP MISSING THE POINT. The Middle Easterns DID NOT HIJACK THE BLEEDING PLANE. The risk of them doing so was incredibly minute anyway!
And okay, FINE! The passengers just wear blindfolds and plug their ears with headphones so they have no idea what's happening around them! Then they'd be happy.
Yes I think they should have been force to speak English, shut up, or gtfo. And I know not all people speak English fluently but they can try their best. The people that can't speak it at all shouldn't go on an American airline then.
The laws that you are proposing be made make America sound more and more like Nazi Germany the more I learn about your position on the subject. I'm eternally thankful you're not in a position of power, because if you were we'd all be waking up to the Yankee Gestapo in a matter of months.
What if an American airline is the only one that can take them to America(which does happen, by the way) and they want to get to America so they can have a better life? What if they're from Haiti, or Sierra Leone, or some other poor impoverished country where people can barely find enough food to eat, and they want to move to America so that they don't starve to death? And they don't speak English: how could they? There's nothing even resembling a proper formal education in Sierra Leone, how would they learn English? Are you saying we kick those people off the planes just because they don't speak English even though they've never been given the opportunity to learn it?
Why do you put the dots ... in front of the sentence? I know why you would in the middle of a quatation or the end of a sentence but I don't know why at the beggining.
It's called an ellipsis, and it's to signify a pause. It can be placed at the beginning of a sentence just as it can be placed at the end of a sentence.
You wouldn't be speaking Arabic now would you? If you were speaking English like everyone else I'd be fine with that.
What if I had a friend from Qatar, and I was speaking to them in their native language because they didn't speak English?
Strangely enough I could not find any statistics at all on nationalities that has hijacked planes. So I may be a little wrong that Middle Easterners do terrorist acts more, but doesn't is make sense since the Middle East has quite a few terrorist training camps? I use my logic off the fact that the Middle East has terrorist training camps.
That's a bull**** argument, every country has terrorist training camps.
There are U.S. and Canada terrorist training camps. There are British terrorist training camps. Need I go on?
They should be watched because they appear like terrorists in the average mans eye.
Let me tell you a little secret...
THE AVERAGE MAN IS AN IDIOT.
THE AVERAGE MAN'S EYE IS BLIND. We cannot build our society around such a flawed concept. As the old proverb goes,
"if you yield to everyone you will soon have nothing left to yield." We have to put our foot down before all our freedoms are taken away. I don't think you'd be so supportive of this policy if it was you who would be suffering from it.
