Forums → WEPR → Saudi's kicked off plane?!
| 149 | 22641 |
If you have heard the story of 2 saudi men travelling on an american plane who got kicked off for speaking arabic then you will think the same as me. Why did they do that? is it just that people are biased about this? also, they were asked to move seats many times till one pulled out his diplomatic pasport. then,they got kicked off.i really dont see why this is happening. it makes no sense to kick off saudi diplomats off a plane because they were speaking arabic. now imagine how i, asa saudi, and many others reacted to this response. next thing you know, you'll be kicked off a plane for wearing a scarf around youre hair(only applies to muslim women)!
I think that this has gone too far. why dont they accept saudi's and muslims as normal people i wouldlike to know?
- 149 Replies
As did the people who hijacked those planes on the day of 9/11 (I think), therefore I believe Middle Easterners look like terrorists. Makes sense?
No.
Let me put it this way...
Gangster = African American.
African American =/= Gangster
Rectangle = Square
Square =/= Rectangle
Basically...all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles. That's the best analogy I could come up with, and it's not perfect, but there.
And that's racist. You should not judge people by appearances, you should judge by actions. Other than LOOKING Middle Eastern(which, again, does not mean they're terrorists) they were doing absolutely nothing suspicious.
Yes Jim could complain and request that the police or the government do an I.D. check to see if he really is an illegal immigrant. Although I think this is different because Saudi Arabian, Arabic speaking, Middle Eastern people are particularly known for being terrorist. If you ask the average person what a Saudi Arabian, Arabic speaking, Middle Eastern person reminds you of, I'd bet you a pretty penny they'd say a terrorist or something simular. And dark skinned, people speaking spanish doesn't make you really think of a illegal immigrant.
Jim didn't say that the government do an ID check, Jim got the Mexican kicked off the bus for no reason other than that Jim is racist and judgmental.
And if I'm going to be completely frank with you, I don't give a rat's *** what the average citizen would say that an Arabic person reminds them of. Why? Because they're not necessarily right. I bet you a pretty penny that if I walked up to that same average citizen and asked them what sport a black person is good at, they would say basketball. I bet that if I walked up to that average citizen and asked what race is best at math, they'd say Asian. I bet if I walked up to an average citizen and asked what they thought of when I said American, they'd say fat and hyper-religious. Just because it's public opinion doesn't mean it's correct. At all.
No there isn't, terrorists dress as Middle Easterners right? (At least the ones from the Middle East I think)
Not all terrorists are Middle Eastern.
You don't make it seem like it, you make it seem like the cops should watch the teenagers instead of the old ladies right? And according to your arguements the cops should watch every one equally right? Until there is solid proof other wise.
No, the cops should watch them both equally.
Check it out...sweet little old ladies DO commit crimes! What a shock! *facepalm*
Then you should know teenagers loiter around all the time, often just chilling and talking. Which you think is suspicious, and what I think isn't suspicious just like the Saudi Arabians, you think they weren't suspicious and I do.
No, I'm saying that a cop would think it's suspicious because they're biased, the same way a security guard would think a Middle Eastern is suspicious because they're biased. That doesn't mean they're right.
That's because they were kicked off the plane before they could right?
No, they are bleeding Arabic diplomats, not terrorists! What in the hell makes you think they would be committing some kind of terrorist act? There was NO evidence found whatsoever that they intended to as much as jaywalk!
True but theres nothing you could do to prevent those things really. I'm talking about preventing a possible terrorist plot by asking the people to speak a language there fluent in.
Sure there is. There are a million things one could do to prevent those kinds of things. You could install a police state, ban all firearms, create a curfew, integrate 24/7 monitoring of all citizens, institute daily body cavity searches, mandate daily psychological evaluations, etc. That would certainly prevent most crimes.
And who says that the people are fluent in English? Nobody! And that would not prevent anything at all! Who says they won't just start whispering?
But the guys from 9/11 were acting Middle Eastern and looking MIddle Eastern! So there isn't a difference, those hijackers acted normal enough enough or they would've been put under lock down and would've been handcuffed. So as I was saying they were acting the same. The diplomats and the terrorists.
ACCkkkk...
No, they weren't.
You think a bunch of jihad terrorists are going to be drawing attention to themselves by looking Middle Eastern? No! They looked American! They acted suspicious! It was the exact opposite with the diplomats.
**** you quite repetitive
Well, if you're going to keep saying the same thing over and over, I'm going to keep replying with the same rebuttal over and over.
about the fact that they weren't acting like the people from 9/11 but just looking like Middle Easterners which they were. And I already knew that about terrorists. I know they can be anyone from anywhere with any level of education but when theres one person that's Saudi Arabian, looks it, and speaks Arabic like the guys from 9/11 then that's when I'd watch them and not watch everyone equally.
Well, that's stupid. You yourself JUST admitted that terrorists could be any race, creed, or whatever, and yet you would watch the Middle Easterners more closely! Why? Because they're more likely to be terrorists? No, they're not! You yourself just admitted that! So what's the point?
I think the lawsuit would work only if they weren't refunded and rescheduled (which they weren't). But I doubt the lawsuit would be successful if they would've been refunded, rescheduled and explained that they were threatening the business money and making so many other people uncomfortable. But the airport didn't do that.
So a lawsuit IS in order as I have been saying, is that what you're saying?
No if you looked Middle Eastern, speak Arabic, and use an accent when you do that intentionally, that's when I raise my eye brows.
What if I looked African, spoke Swahili, and used an accent? Would you still be suspicious?
Because there is such a thing as an African terrorist you know.
We have a difference of opion then. I think watching people that are Saudi Arabian, have that accent, and speak Arabic is safe and logical and you don't. For this we will have to agree to disagree.
Okay, I'm going to correct you before you drive me insane.
It's OPINION. Not "opion". OPINION.
Above I have said what I have thought about the lawsuit. And what should have been done so they weren't sued. I disagree with what the airline did about not refunding, rescheduling, explaining and all that.
Well, that's NOT what they did, so the lawsuit angle still stands. The monetary angle that you are trying for fails, because the airport handled it incorrectly. We are talking about this case, are we not? So you can't just dismiss what they actually did.
Well that's what I think the security should do and the terrorist should. I'm not saying that all the staff should be watching the Middle Easterners, just one of them, or two and the rest of the staff should be watching everyone else as they really would.
What do you mean the actual threat? Your acting like on the plane the diplomats were on theres was a real threat, and the security by passed it with it's racism to the diplomats, when in actuality there was no threats on the plane.
Question: Is English your second language or something?
There was no real threat on the plane with the diplomats, you are correct. But you are saying that we should implement a security system where people who appear/speak Middle Eastern are watched more closely, which could be easily evaded by real terrorists. So in a situation where there was a real threat, the system you are proposing would make things worse, not better.
1) Yes (I know your not gonna like that answer)
I haven't branded the diplomats as terrorists I'm just saying they should be watched. And if you speak Farsi I would just watch you discreetly if the language was like Arabic and your clothing was Arabic like.
Welp! Here I thought your whole argument was that Middle Easterners are terrorists...nope! It's people who look Middle Eastern who are terrorists!
That makes even less sense...which I didn't think possible...
No it wouldn't be ok to kick you off then because you can't switch languages to English well, and you don't really understand it. But the diplomats were pretty fluent. And if you can speak English fluently on an American airline, but feel more comfortable with Arabic. To bad for you. It's easier for everyone if you spoke English (if you can fluently).
No, I think too bad for the people who are uncomfortable, because you should be allowed to speak any language and look any way that you **** well please without getting kicked off of airplanes.
Since you know precisely what I mean by senseful I'll still use it though. And it is a word. And again I don't find it racist and you do. The business was thinking finacially not morally so it's not racist. What they did afterwards was idiotic though. No refund, reschedule, explanation or anything. I would call it senseful, and rational. Perhaps intelligence, but I'll stick with senseful and rational for now.
But they weren't thinking financially, or if they were, their logic was flawed. They will lose far, far more money in a lawsuit(which could easily happen) than what they saved by kicking the Arabs off the plane.
Sensible. Sensible is the word. Not senseful.
I like how panzertank attacks the person with the much weaker argument instead of me.
I like how panzertank attacks the person with the much weaker argument instead of me.
Oh, thanks for that...
I like how panzertank attacks the person with the much weaker argument instead of me.Arguing against you and Hypermnestra at one time? Crazy talk. Do you know how much writing that would be, and how long that takes? I think I'll try it tommorow though.
And your right about pratchu's arguement being weak. But then again people probably think my arguement is also weak and rediculous
And I also attack Hypermnestra's arguements not just pratchu's.
Arguing against you and Hypermnestra at one time? Crazy talk. Do you know how much writing that would be, and how long that takes? I think I'll try it tommorow though.
And your right about pratchu's arguement being weak. But then again people probably think my arguement is also weak and rediculous
And I also attack Hypermnestra's arguements not just pratchu's.
You're argument is strong, but ridiculous. You should try it tomorrow.
Why are those parts bolded? Incorrect grammar being pointed out?
In which case, I would like to say that the two of you have been very consistently using the wrong "your/you're" and "their/they're/there".
Why are those parts bolded? Incorrect grammar being pointed out?
In which case, I would like to say that the two of you have been very consistently using the wrong "your/you're" and "their/they're/there".
Oh how ironic. I almost never make that mistake, yet when I am correcting his grammar, I make a mistake on the most simple of things.
i have a feeling that this is getting out of control. anyway, PanzerTank, dont be so racist. this is a thread about saudi's kicked off a plane not about the fact they shouldn't look like suicide bombers. besides, anyone you think is a suicide bomber probably isnt.
No.The first part is sarcasm? I don't know what you mean by the square and rectangle thing through.
Let me put it this way...
Gangster = African American.
African American =/= Gangster
Rectangle = Square
Square =/= Rectangle
Basically...all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles. That's the best analogy I could come up with, and it's not perfect, but there.
But what I think you mean is that if somebody looks like something that they are particularly known for it doesn't make them one of those things? Anyways I'm not saying those were terrorists I'm saying that there should be precautions taking when Middle Eastern looking, Arabic speaking men or ladies enter the plane, they should be quiet or speak another well understood language so we know for sure they aren't discussing hijacking the plane.
Other than LOOKING Middle Eastern(which, again, does not mean they're terrorists) they were doing absolutely nothing suspicious.Other than looking Middle Eastern, and speaking Arabic like the terrorists from 9/11. The men from 9/11 weren't particularly nervous, (at least not in the movies) and they sure weren't dressed as terrorists.
Jim didn't say that the government do an ID check, Jim got the Mexican kicked off the bus for no reason other than that Jim is racist and judgmental.I agree that would be wrong because the Mexican isn't particularly known for jumping people on a bus, as opposed to the fact that Middle Easterners or known for being terrorists. It may be an ugly fact but it's true
And if I'm going to be completely frank with you, I don't give a rat's *** what the average citizen would say that an Arabic person reminds them of. Why? Because they're not necessarily rightYou may not care but an airline company does care if alot of it's passengers are getting nervous and ready to leave is something isn't done about the Saudi Arabian. So the personel were forced to decide what to do. Care about what the passengers say or let them leave.
I bet you a pretty penny that if I walked up to that same average citizen and asked them what sport a black person is good at, they would say basketball. I bet that if I walked up to that average citizen and asked what race is best at math, they'd say Asian. I bet if I walked up to an average citizen and asked what they thought of when I said American, they'd say fat and hyper-religious. Just because it's public opinion doesn't mean it's correct. At all.Were not talking about opionions here, it doesn't matter what someones opionion is, but what does matter is when the company is going to lose money by a good portion of it's passengers getting up and leaving. If someone said "my opion is those men look like terrorists", that opion wouldn't matter to the company unless they left the plane.
Not all terrorists are Middle Eastern.I never said that, I was implying that you should watch the Middle Easterners, because they are known to be terrorists.
No, the cops should watch them both equally.That only happens once in a blue moon, same as hijackings. But you still watch the suspicious people even if the other not so suspicious people do hijack planes once and again. You watch the suspicious people because they commit the crimes more. Like teenage kids loitering is more likely to cause trouble than old ladies.
Check it out...sweet little old ladies DO commit crimes! What a shock! *facepalm*
No, I'm saying that a cop would think it's suspicious because they're biased, the same way a security guard would think a Middle Eastern is suspicious because they're biased. That doesn't mean they're right.Yes it does. You obviously watch the teenagers instead of the 77-year-old ladies because it's more likely they'll commit the crimes and not the women. Same as with the Saudi Arabians.
No, they are bleeding Arabic diplomats, not terrorists! What in the hell makes you think they would be committing some kind of terrorist act? There was NO evidence found whatsoever that they intended to as much as jaywalk!Same as with the terrorists on the day of 9/11 they were just regular citizens til after the fact. Same as the diplomats they could've been diplomats til after the hijacking. And on the day of 9/11 there was no evidence til after the fact that the bombing was done. I'm not saying the hijacking was likely. I'm just saying it's a possibility (I'm meant to mean that anyways).
Sure there is. There are a million things one could do to prevent those kinds of things. You could install a police state, ban all firearms, create a curfew, integrate 24/7 monitoring of all citizens, institute daily body cavity searches, mandate daily psychological evaluations, etc. That would certainly prevent most crimes.I meant nothing reasonable you could do. Unlike stopping terrorist threats on airplanes. Demand they don't talk or ask them to speak another language. And don't say what if they don't know another one, you don't come from the Middle East, to America not knowing any other language but Arabic. That'd be completely illogical and you know it.
And who says that the people are fluent in English? Nobody! And that would not prevent anything at all! Who says they won't just start whispering?Um yea sure. Two diplomats come to America without knowing English, even though it's the world's second language (I believe), and the fact that they spoke to the staff in English, and the press in English. Even if they weren't completely fluent they could speak it darn, well and that's for sure. And maybe they should've whispered then it'd keep the other passengers unaware they were speaking (if the Saudi Arabians are careful enough). They way everyones happy. What the passengers don't know wont hurt them (probably). I'm saying they should've spoken English when there talking out loud so nobodies to nervous.
ACCkkkk...Prove that
No, they weren't.
You think a bunch of jihad terrorists are going to be drawing attention to themselves by looking Middle Eastern? No! They looked American! They acted suspicious! It was the exact opposite with the diplomats.
Well, if you're going to keep saying the same thing over and over, I'm going to keep replying with the same rebuttal over and over.You don't need to repeat all the time. When I do it it's because I forgot I said that or thought it's partially different. Did you notice I didn't reply to everything you said because it would just be repeating my self?
Well, that's stupid. You yourself JUST admitted that terrorists could be any race, creed, or whatever, and yet you would watch the Middle Easterners more closely! Why? Because they're more likely to be terrorists? No, they're not! You yourself just admitted that! So what's the point?I said that I know they can be any race, or creed or what ever. But I would still watch the Middle Easterners more because they are more known for it.
What if I looked African, spoke Swahili, and used an accent? Would you still be suspicious?No because your not Middle Eastern, I would be watching my wallet but not being nervous of you hijacking the plane because Africans aren't particularly known for hijacking planes. I know there are African terrorists but Africans aren't particularly known for that.
Because there is such a thing as an African terrorist you know
Okay, I'm going to correct you before you drive me insane.*Smiles* I knew that but yesterday I was tired and mad.
It's OPINION. Not "opion". OPINION.
Well, that's NOT what they did, so the lawsuit angle still stands. The monetary angle that you are trying for fails, because the airport handled it incorrectly. We are talking about this case, are we not? So you can't just dismiss what they actually did.True, the lawsuit still stands, but we are talking about the people being kicked off the plane and the reasons why. I'm saying I agree with them being kicked off the plane but I disagree with what the airline did afterwards. My arguement is that the airline kicked them out righteously considering the circumstances, (I know righteously isn't the right word but I can't think of another one right now) but what they did afterwards was wrong. That is just my arguement. I agree with the Saudi Arabians being escorted off the plane, but not what the airline did afterwards. And your right you can't dismiss what they did. The Arabians have all the right in the world to sue for what happened afterwards.
Question: Is English your second language or something?Yes, French is my first language.
There was no real threat on the plane with the diplomats, you are correct. But you are saying that we should implement a security system where people who appear/speak Middle Eastern are watched more closely, which could be easily evaded by real terrorists. So in a situation where there was a real threat, the system you are proposing would make things worse, not better.I agree with everything there but until someone looks Middle Eastern, speaks Arabic, and has an accent, and a real threat was on that same plane, I will not take back what I think would be a good security question.
Welp! Here I thought your whole argument was that Middle Easterners are terrorists...nope! It's people who look Middle Eastern who are terrorists!Well above I said what my arguement is. I agree with the Middle Easterners being kicked off, and I told you why I agree with that. I never said Middle Easterners, or people who look Middle Eastern are terrorist. I said they should be watched.
That makes even less sense...which I didn't think possible
And muahahaha you were mistaken, that would make less sense! To bad that's not what I think, or you would've been mistaken
No, I think too bad for the people who are uncomfortable, because you should be allowed to speak any language and look any way that you **** well please without getting kicked off of airplanes.Well we've discussed this, I said my opinions and you said yours, anything I say now would be repetitive to that particular area.
But they weren't thinking financially, or if they were, their logic was flawed. They will lose far, far more money in a lawsuit(which could easily happen) than what they saved by kicking the Arabs off the plane.I still think they were thinking financially although their logic was partially flawed. They weren't flawed when they chose to kick them off the plane, but their thinking was flawed when they chose not to refund, reschedule, or explain why.
Sensible. Sensible is the word. Not senseful.
9/11 is generally grouped in as one event. We were attacked once, and that one attack was carried out by three different planes. It doesn't matter how you define it, we still waged war over a significantly insignificant event.I don't think 9/11 was grouped as one event. We think of it as the trade centers being attacked multiple times. So U.S.A. was attacked three times. That thinking seems logical to me. And the U.S.A. had several attacks against them, with bombs in buses and such (all failed I believed). And yea I agree a war against terrorism is unsignificant right? Right!Yea that makes sense...
If we hadn't given them a headstart, we could've gotten them in less than a year, that's if the CIA was more like the Mossad.What do you mean gave them a headstart? How could we have gotten them in less than a year? By commiting terrorists moves like the Mossad? Or become Assains like them? So you mean become the enemies that U.S.A. declared war on?
http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm
http://www.rense.com/general32/ruth.htm
Discrimination is caused by intolerance, and intolerance is caused by ignorance. I would say you're about one of the dumbest people I know.Calling me ignorant, and the dumbest person you know? This is why I snapped at you in the Western Medicine thread. In case any one missed this is is what I said earlier.
"what I meant was I discriminate against people who I think looks like terrorists. I wouldn't discriminate against the Middle Easterners if they chose to speak English when there fluent in it, and dress as we would til they get back to the Middle East.
Sorry thought to make that clear. When I said I discriminate it was sarcasm that I discriminate against people who in my eye looks like suicide bombers"
What if fear caused you to be a pariah? You had to live in camps where you get very little food, you don't sleep well, and you are only confined to that camp?What are you talking about? Are you saying I'm a scared pariah? Are you seeing that if you fear some one you should put them in camps? Did you say that as sarcasm? If you did mean that, what I meant is that you use safety to over wiegh an individuals right in a reasonable manner. By getting searched, wearing that countries clothing, speaking one of it's most understood languages. You know reasonable things not stopping people from entering places and putting them into camps like Hitler did.
Okay, that is an exaggeration, but what if the only thing you can do is go to the grocery store to get food. Even then, they don't have to let you in.
I would say France, England, and just about every 1st world country that is democratic and capitalistic. Also, how are you going to say that we should not follow any of the things stated in one of our two most important documents in the US?I would say the leaders of those countries would agree with that in front of the media and such, but on a larger picture if you ask a random citizen in any country but U.S.A. and ask how they thought of American citizens in a few words, what do you think the response would be? I'm not saying that you shouldn't follow it but I'm saying you don't follow it. I think U.S.A. should but they don't follow those things.
Either you live under a rock, or you do not know anything. In some countries, you have to own a gun to be able to bring water from the river, or else you might get shot. That is not life, liberty, or happiness. What would you define life, liberty, and the happiness?Again with the insults. Show me a link where someone was shot for that. I canside liberty and happiness living in Canada. And being Canadian. Being free minded. Being rational. Having fun. Living life. Playing sports. Debating. Going out.
As you can see, more Caucasians are arrested than any other race in the US. I doubt it would completely flip flop in four years. Of course you would be likely to contest that since you clearly have no understanding of how anything works, and I doubt you would understand this chart or how a trend worksSee why do you have to be a mule about this? I haven't insulted you ever in this thread. And I insulted you once in retailiation for you doing this.
But I want to know where it got it's references. The police can't legally distribute that type of information I believe. And when I meant statistics of those things, I meant of the worlds population of caucasions, black peoples, yellow people (Chinese people), natives and such. I doubt with continents like Africa, and places like Asia those statistics would be the same.
How many Middle Easterners have hijacked planes in the past ten years? Less than ten. How many white people have crashed cars? At least one million. Should I be afraid of white people crashing cars because they crash cars more than any other race?You shouldn't be afraid of the white people crashing cars because theres no sense of fearing what you can't change. Unlike the Middle Easterners, speaking Arabic on a plane you can change that, (laughs humourlessly) by getting the Arabians kicked off the planes.
You're in the age 12-21 group. Should be put you under surveillance because some kids vandalize things?I am when I entered a store before the cashier told me to empty my pockets and take off my hat. But anyways I shouldn't be put under surveillance because theres to many people in the age 12-21 group to watch out for everyone. But theres not to many Middle Eastern, Arabian speaking people in an American airline so you can watch out for that.
So basically, you think that being kicked off a plane is not isolation? What is your definition of isolation since you seem to make things up?No basically I think you should be put under discreet watch not, kicked off the plane. I never said you should be isolated. I think isolation is when your left alone, ignored, not by anyone else etc... I also never make things up.
They are. The chances of a plane being hijacked by Middle Easterners are 5 out of 1.5 billion. I don't know about you, but I like those odds. I wouldn't mind being in a plane with a 100 million Middle Easterners, if a plane could hold that many people.As you can imagine, I'm a little confused. You say they are. What do you mean by that? The chances are 5 out of 6.3 billion? Cause they aren't. Also I wouldn't want to be the odd man to be in a hijacked plane. So I'd still stay on the reasonably safe side every time possible.
I doubt you would come upon your conclusion without some sort of influence.*smiles* Oh but I don't come upon my conclusions without some sort of unfluence. I hear the news... I read books, and occasionally newspapers. But I mainly come upon my conclusions with sensefullness (I know Hypermnestra wont like that word), and using ratonalism.
Even if that group has a million followers, it is extremely small compared to the amount of people we have in the US and how many people there are the in the Middle Eastern worldI'm sorry I'm not seeing your point. Sorry...
i have a feeling that this is getting out of control. anyway, PanzerTank, dont be so racist. this is a thread about saudi's kicked off a plane not about the fact they shouldn't look like suicide bombers. besides, anyone you think is a suicide bomber probably isnt.This isn't getting out of control. Getting out of control is cussing and being off topic. Being involved in a debate isn't out of control Nancy.
I'm racist? Pffft, how? Out of curiousity how would you have me disagree with your OP (opening paragraph) without being racist?
And I pointed out that the Middle Eastern clothing is probably a reason they got kicked off the plane. So when I made that comment it was still on topic.
I've never said any specific person was a suicide bomber, or thought any particular person was except for the ones that actually did prove it by strapping on a bomb and blowing things up with themselves.
I'd also like to say I think you made this thread for one or more of these reasons.
A) You just wanted to make a thread
B) You just like to call people ignorant and racist
C) You jsut like people areeing with you and no one disagreeing with you
I say this because you haven't posted a link to the incident. You have added or responded to any of this debate really, except every odd paragraph out of what 10-15?
Why are those parts bolded? Incorrect grammar being pointed out?I think those parts were in bold for a reason. Reread the post he made. Read it carefully.
In which case, I would like to say that the two of you have been very consistently using the wrong "your/you're" and "their/they're/there".
I can live with my grammar mistakes by the way. After typing so much, and for so long your bound to make a mistake aren't you?
and you should erything on this thread not my messenger.Oh and I put things on your messenger that are off topic. And if you really felt that way don't respond to me. And I find it slightly ironic that I told you to put things that belong into this thread on your thread and not my messenger first lol...
I don't think 9/11 was grouped as one event. We think of it as the trade centers being attacked multiple times. So U.S.A. was attacked three times. That thinking seems logical to me. And the U.S.A. had several attacks against them, with bombs in buses and such (all failed I believed). And yea I agree a war against terrorism is unsignificant right? Right!Yea that makes sense...
One day. One event. Also, the war on terrorism could have been avoided if the CIA was more actively involved.
What do you mean gave them a headstart? How could we have gotten them in less than a year? By commiting terrorists moves like the Mossad? Or become Assains like them? So you mean become the enemies that U.S.A. declared war on?
We began sending troops to Afghanistan eight months after we were attacked. The US can be mobilized in less than one month. Anyway, instead of sending thousands of troops, we could just send CIA agents to find Osama Bin Laden.
Also, that Rense website also says "Lady GaGa - Satan?"
1. It is written by a biased person
2. It is a company
Calling me ignorant, and the dumbest person you know? This is why I snapped at you in the Western Medicine thread. In case any one missed this is is what I said earlier.
I am calling you intolerant and since intolerance is fueled by ignorance, you must be dumb. It makes sense.
What are you talking about? Are you saying I'm a scared pariah? Are you seeing that if you fear some one you should put them in camps? Did you say that as sarcasm? If you did mean that, what I meant is that you use safety to over wiegh an individuals right in a reasonable manner. By getting searched, wearing that countries clothing, speaking one of it's most understood languages. You know reasonable things not stopping people from entering places and putting them into camps like Hitler did.
I was referring to the Japanese Internment camps if you knew anything about history. It doesn't even matter. The second part is completely understandable for any person with a bit of intelligence and bit of common sense.
I would say the leaders of those countries would agree with that in front of the media and such, but on a larger picture if you ask a random citizen in any country but U.S.A. and ask how they thought of American citizens in a few words, what do you think the response would be? I'm not saying that you shouldn't follow it but I'm saying you don't follow it. I think U.S.A. should but they don't follow those things.
You think the US should provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yet you believe we should scrutinize Middle Easterners? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone except Middle Easterners?
Again with the insults. Show me a link where someone was shot for that. I canside liberty and happiness living in Canada. And being Canadian. Being free minded. Being rational. Having fun. Living life. Playing sports. Debating. Going out.
Rwanda and Sudan. I don't need to show you a link. You should be educated enough yourself to do it. And don't give me some bull**** link about some paranoid guy's blog.
But I want to know where it got it's references. The police can't legally distribute that type of information I believe. And when I meant statistics of those things, I meant of the worlds population of caucasions, black peoples, yellow people (Chinese people), natives and such. I doubt with continents like Africa, and places like Asia those statistics would be the same.
Actually, it can. I just couldn't find information on that specific category. [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr[/url]
Anyway, in the US, more Caucasians commit crimes than any other minority combined. Why aren't we on the lookout for them? Explain to me why. If you don't or can't, then it just proves your argument is nonsense.
You shouldn't be afraid of the white people crashing cars because theres no sense of fearing what you can't change. Unlike the Middle Easterners, speaking Arabic on a plane you can change that, (laughs humourlessly) by getting the Arabians kicked off the planes.
Actually, you can. Don't let white people buy cars anymore.
I am when I entered a store before the cashier told me to empty my pockets and take off my hat. But anyways I shouldn't be put under surveillance because theres to many people in the age 12-21 group to watch out for everyone. But theres not to many Middle Eastern, Arabian speaking people in an American airline so you can watch out for that.
The Middle Easterner is forced to do the security checks. You were forced to do that security check for the cashier. What's the difference? The cashier let you buy that. The Middle Easterners didn't.
No basically I think you should be put under discreet watch not, kicked off the plane. I never said you should be isolated. I think isolation is when your left alone, ignored, not by anyone else etc... I also never make things up.
But then that violates the fourteenth amendment. Equal protection. Why should one group be under surveillance more than another when they have low crime rates, have murdered less people than many other minorities, and practice a different religion?
As you can imagine, I'm a little confused. You say they are. What do you mean by that? The chances are 5 out of 6.3 billion? Cause they aren't. Also I wouldn't want to be the odd man to be in a hijacked plane. So I'd still stay on the reasonably safe side every time possible.
Are mentally retarded?
How many people hijacked a plane into the WTC?
Five, right?
How many people are there on this planet?
6.3 billion.
If you simplify it, it is about 1 out of every 1.25 billion people.
I'm sorry I'm not seeing your point. Sorry...
If AL-Qaeda had one million people in it, the US has 300 million people in it. Small compared to the US.
The first part is sarcasm? I don't know what you mean by the square and rectangle thing through.
No, it's not.
And at the other sentiment, *facepalm*.
You're saying that because the terrorists on 9/11 were Middle Eastern, we should keep an eye on all Middle Easterns, correct?
I am countering by saying that just because terrorists were Middle Eastern, that doesn't mean Middle Easterns are terrorists.
But what I think you mean is that if somebody looks like something that they are particularly known for it doesn't make them one of those things? Anyways I'm not saying those were terrorists I'm saying that there should be precautions taking when Middle Eastern looking, Arabic speaking men or ladies enter the plane, they should be quiet or speak another well understood language so we know for sure they aren't discussing hijacking the plane.
Why should we force them to speak another language? Again, what if it's a private conversation? What if they aren't fluent in English or whatever language? So, because they're Middle Eastern and we don't understand them, we automatically default to "terrorist"?
I agree that would be wrong because the Mexican isn't particularly known for jumping people on a bus, as opposed to the fact that Middle Easterners or known for being terrorists. It may be an ugly fact but it's true
Bull****, it's not a fact. They are KNOWN for it, but that doesn't make it true. That's like saying because the South/Bible Belt is known for having racists, that means that people from the South are racist. I don't know how many times I'm going to say it, public perception is almost always inaccurate.
I never said that, I was implying that you should watch the Middle Easterners, because they are known to be terrorists.
KNOWN =/= are.
Let me put it this way. Nevada is known for Las Vegas. If I asked you to name one other city in Nevada, you'd probably have difficulty. Does that mean that every person from Nevada is from Las Vegas?
And Utah is known for Mormons. Does that mean that every person from Utah is a Mormon?
You may not care but an airline company does care if alot of it's passengers are getting nervous and ready to leave is something isn't done about the Saudi Arabian. So the personel were forced to decide what to do. Care about what the passengers say or let them leave.
Were not talking about opionions here, it doesn't matter what someones opionion is, but what does matter is when the company is going to lose money by a good portion of it's passengers getting up and leaving. If someone said "my opion is those men look like terrorists", that opion wouldn't matter to the company unless they left the plane.
Yes, we are.
Why are the passengers getting up and leaving? It's because of their OPINION that Middle Easterns are terrorists. And I have said this about five times now: the company will lose money if people get up and leave, that is true. But they will lose a lot more money if they make the Middle Easterns leave. Lawsuit, remember?
That only happens once in a blue moon, same as hijackings. But you still watch the suspicious people even if the other not so suspicious people do hijack planes once and again. You watch the suspicious people because they commit the crimes more. Like teenage kids loitering is more likely to cause trouble than old ladies.
But they are Middle Eastern, how does that make them suspicious? I know that it makes them seem suspicious, but you yourself just said that opinion doesn't matter, so...
I would like to see some evidence on your part that Middle Easterns are more violent, more inclined towards terrorism, etc.
Yes it does. You obviously watch the teenagers instead of the 77-year-old ladies because it's more likely they'll commit the crimes and not the women. Same as with the Saudi Arabians.
Please link to your source. Where are you getting this information about crime demographics?
Same as with the terrorists on the day of 9/11 they were just regular citizens til after the fact. Same as the diplomats they could've been diplomats til after the hijacking. And on the day of 9/11 there was no evidence til after the fact that the bombing was done. I'm not saying the hijacking was likely. I'm just saying it's a possibility (I'm meant to mean that anyways).
So you're saying that you think the diplomats were ACTUALLY going to commit a crime?
There is NO evidence for that whatsoever! Now you're saying that just because they're Middle Eastern.
I meant nothing reasonable you could do.
Oh, and of course you think the measures we're already taking are reasonable...
Unlike stopping terrorist threats on airplanes. Demand they don't talk or ask them to speak another language. And don't say what if they don't know another one, you don't come from the Middle East, to America not knowing any other language but Arabic. That'd be completely illogical and you know it.
Demand they don't talk?
WTF?
We can't force people into silence just because they feel like speaking a different bloody language.
And immigrants DO come to America knowing English...but not fluently. They probably speak their first language a lot better, and are more comfortable in that. Like you, wouldn't you vastly prefer it if this debate were carried out in your first language?
Um yea sure. Two diplomats come to America without knowing English, even though it's the world's second language (I believe), and the fact that they spoke to the staff in English, and the press in English.
I'm not talking about this one specific case on that point. You're saying that in a similar case, they should have been forced to speak English, shut up, or gtfo, is that correct? And I'm saying that not all people speak English fluently or at all.
They way everyones happy.
So you're talking about appeasing the masses? Not about safety at all?
What the passengers don't know wont hurt them (probably).
Then why didn't the passengers just look the other way, plug their ears, and go "lalalalalalalaa"? That would make everyone happy, too.
I'm saying they should've spoken English when there talking out loud so nobodies to nervous.
There are always idiots. They are still going to be nervous.
Prove that
You don't need to repeat all the time. When I do it it's because I forgot I said that or thought it's partially different. Did you notice I didn't reply to everything you said because it would just be repeating my self?
Well, that's how I debate. If you're going to say the same thing, so am I.
I said that I know they can be any race, or creed or what ever. But I would still watch the Middle Easterners more because they are more known for it.
...
Just because they're known for it, doesn't mean that they are!
Like, African Americans are known for being good at basketball, right? Does that mean that if I just walked up to some random black person on the street, they could dunk a basketball? No.
No because your not Middle Eastern, I would be watching my wallet but not being nervous of you hijacking the plane because Africans aren't particularly known for hijacking planes. I know there are African terrorists but Africans aren't particularly known for that.
Read the above, please.
*Smiles*
Quit with the asterisked actions, please.
Yes, French is my first language.
Great, then maybe you can understand. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable if this debate were carried out in French instead of English? What if you were forced to speak English all the time instead of speaking the language you wanted to speak, and if you didn't speak English, you couldn't talk at all?
I agree with everything there but until someone looks Middle Eastern, speaks Arabic, and has an accent, and a real threat was on that same plane, I will not take back what I think would be a good security question.
...So people who LOOK Middle Eastern are more likely to be terrorists?
What if I was born in the United States, raised there, never been out of the country, but I looked Middle Eastern?
Well above I said what my arguement is. I agree with the Middle Easterners being kicked off, and I told you why I agree with that. I never said Middle Easterners, or people who look Middle Eastern are terrorist. I said they should be watched.
But why should they be watched? Just because they're Middle Eastern? No, your logic is that they are terrorists, so they should be watched. Correct me on that if I'm wrong, in which case please tell me why you want them to be watched more closely then.
And muahahaha you were mistaken, that would make less sense! To bad that's not what I think, or you would've been mistaken
I still think they were thinking financially although their logic was partially flawed. They weren't flawed when they chose to kick them off the plane, but their thinking was flawed when they chose not to refund, reschedule, or explain why.
Lawsuit could still be filed for discrimination, even if they were refunded. I already gave an example in this thread.
You must be logged in to post a reply!