Qatari royals halt British flight
Aug 4th 2007 | 3:32 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:20:31 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>
>: WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>
>> The OP did say "...it would have taken ten seconds, and then
>> they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!"
>
>> That looks awfully like a police state to me.
>
>Why? Is it the handcuffs, the being dragged off the plane,
>or its hypothetically taking ten seconds? Or maybe just the
>mere presence of the police?
It's the idea of instant intolerance of other cultures and resort to
"dragging people off planes in handcuffs in 10secs" that gets me.
In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
have their day in court before such action is considered.
>> The only ground I will give you is that some of the Arab
>> sheiks in the M/E can be a bit OTT in the ego dept.
>
>Isn't that all the more reason to be firm and assertive
>with them when one is in the right?
Well at this distance we don't know who was right.
Anyway, one cannot assume that all Arab sheiks are the same.
That awful term *natural justice* keeps popping up.
>: Those inconsiderate asses interfered with other people's
>: travel, not to mention legitimate international commerce.
>
>> I agree but sh*t happens and the only problem I can see is
>> that it took three hours to decide how to handle it.
>
>So...you object to the fact that it took three hours to remove
>these people from the plane, but you'd also have objected if it
>took only ten seconds. Which way do you want it?
I believe the airline should have a better procedure of dealing with
it that took less than three hours.
>: Your mentioning a police state hints that you're a bit of a
>: liberal. Liberals are big on rights, so weigh this: The
>: unruly passengers obviously believed that their rights as
>: to seat preference trumped the right of their fellow pas-
>: senegers to go about their travelsm which was patently
>: absurd. How would *you* feel if you'd been a passenger on
>: that plane?
>
>> I wonder if there's a dash of anti-Arabism in your comments?
>
>Nice attempt at diversion. I never even mentioned Arabs in the
>quoted passage, as you can see.
Maybe you avoided the word Arab to deflect from anti-Arabism.
I've seen it before.
> And just by the bye, you'll
>find that I don't crumple like tissue paper in the face of
>accusations of racism and the like. It's an American thing.
Well I have once or twice criticised Israeli policies and been called
anti-semitic by Americans.
>> Fwiw I'm a (moderate) libertarian. We don't define people
>> as being "liberal" or not in the UK. That's largely an
>> American term.
>
>That's interesting to hear. I've read any number of books and
>articles by British authors in which the terms "liberal" and
>"conservative" were used. Moreover, I understand that there
>even used to be a Liberal political party in the UK.
Yes, in Britain liberal used to apply to the old Conservative Liberal
traditions - ie small state, personal privacy and freedom and liberty
of the individual - all of which I am 100% behind.
But do I support our current Liberal Democrat Party? No way.
There is no Party in Britain today which really supports the old
liberal traditions, they've all become ever more statist.
>>I'd probably have been irritated that the airline didn't have a
>>better procedure for handling such issues *before* they arise.
>
>So it's the airline's fault for failing to anticipate every
>possible way in which passengers can be unreasonable? Sounds
>like a pretty tall order. I get the impression that you're
>bending over backwards to avoid placing the blame on the
>shoulders of the passangers because they're Arabs.
No I'm not. Only saying that "dragging people off planes in handcuffs
in 10secs" is unacceptable and smacks of police state tactics.
You have to remember that police themselves often find the law a
hindrance and would like to apply those tactics but the Rule of Law
prevents it (sometimes/often).
>: If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>: down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>> Indeed, a police state. Beware of what you wish for...
>
>A sweeping Republican victory in 2008?
I support Ron Paul - even though I'm not American. He's probably
the only man who stands a chance of digging America out of Iraq.
Right now I would impeach Bush and charge him (and Blair) with
war crimes ...but that's another story.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>
>: WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>
>> The OP did say "...it would have taken ten seconds, and then
>> they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!"
>
>> That looks awfully like a police state to me.
>
>Why? Is it the handcuffs, the being dragged off the plane,
>or its hypothetically taking ten seconds? Or maybe just the
>mere presence of the police?
It's the idea of instant intolerance of other cultures and resort to
"dragging people off planes in handcuffs in 10secs" that gets me.
In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
have their day in court before such action is considered.
>> The only ground I will give you is that some of the Arab
>> sheiks in the M/E can be a bit OTT in the ego dept.
>
>Isn't that all the more reason to be firm and assertive
>with them when one is in the right?
Well at this distance we don't know who was right.
Anyway, one cannot assume that all Arab sheiks are the same.
That awful term *natural justice* keeps popping up.
>: Those inconsiderate asses interfered with other people's
>: travel, not to mention legitimate international commerce.
>
>> I agree but sh*t happens and the only problem I can see is
>> that it took three hours to decide how to handle it.
>
>So...you object to the fact that it took three hours to remove
>these people from the plane, but you'd also have objected if it
>took only ten seconds. Which way do you want it?
I believe the airline should have a better procedure of dealing with
it that took less than three hours.
>: Your mentioning a police state hints that you're a bit of a
>: liberal. Liberals are big on rights, so weigh this: The
>: unruly passengers obviously believed that their rights as
>: to seat preference trumped the right of their fellow pas-
>: senegers to go about their travelsm which was patently
>: absurd. How would *you* feel if you'd been a passenger on
>: that plane?
>
>> I wonder if there's a dash of anti-Arabism in your comments?
>
>Nice attempt at diversion. I never even mentioned Arabs in the
>quoted passage, as you can see.
Maybe you avoided the word Arab to deflect from anti-Arabism.
I've seen it before.
> And just by the bye, you'll
>find that I don't crumple like tissue paper in the face of
>accusations of racism and the like. It's an American thing.
Well I have once or twice criticised Israeli policies and been called
anti-semitic by Americans.
>> Fwiw I'm a (moderate) libertarian. We don't define people
>> as being "liberal" or not in the UK. That's largely an
>> American term.
>
>That's interesting to hear. I've read any number of books and
>articles by British authors in which the terms "liberal" and
>"conservative" were used. Moreover, I understand that there
>even used to be a Liberal political party in the UK.
Yes, in Britain liberal used to apply to the old Conservative Liberal
traditions - ie small state, personal privacy and freedom and liberty
of the individual - all of which I am 100% behind.
But do I support our current Liberal Democrat Party? No way.
There is no Party in Britain today which really supports the old
liberal traditions, they've all become ever more statist.
>>I'd probably have been irritated that the airline didn't have a
>>better procedure for handling such issues *before* they arise.
>
>So it's the airline's fault for failing to anticipate every
>possible way in which passengers can be unreasonable? Sounds
>like a pretty tall order. I get the impression that you're
>bending over backwards to avoid placing the blame on the
>shoulders of the passangers because they're Arabs.
No I'm not. Only saying that "dragging people off planes in handcuffs
in 10secs" is unacceptable and smacks of police state tactics.
You have to remember that police themselves often find the law a
hindrance and would like to apply those tactics but the Rule of Law
prevents it (sometimes/often).
>: If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>: down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>> Indeed, a police state. Beware of what you wish for...
>
>A sweeping Republican victory in 2008?
I support Ron Paul - even though I'm not American. He's probably
the only man who stands a chance of digging America out of Iraq.
Right now I would impeach Bush and charge him (and Blair) with
war crimes ...but that's another story.
Aug 4th 2007 | 8:00 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>have their day in court before such action is considered.
Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
plane?
>I believe the airline should have a better procedure of dealing with
>it that took less than three hours.
So perhaps a judge should be available in all planes and all buildings,
in case anyone requires a judge's services?
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>have their day in court before such action is considered.
Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
plane?
>I believe the airline should have a better procedure of dealing with
>it that took less than three hours.
So perhaps a judge should be available in all planes and all buildings,
in case anyone requires a judge's services?
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
Aug 4th 2007 | 10:36 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>>have their day in court before such action is considered.
>
>Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
>plane?
Nope.
>>I believe the airline should have a better procedure of dealing with
>>it that took less than three hours.
>
>So perhaps a judge should be available in all planes and all buildings,
>in case anyone requires a judge's services?
Nope.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>>have their day in court before such action is considered.
>
>Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
>plane?
Nope.
>>I believe the airline should have a better procedure of dealing with
>>it that took less than three hours.
>
>So perhaps a judge should be available in all planes and all buildings,
>in case anyone requires a judge's services?
Nope.
Aug 4th 2007 | 2:47 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100, hummingbird
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
>
>Ouch!
>I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
Interesting view. Think about the different ways that your two
nations react to terrorist attacks (ie, New York and the more recent
Tube bombings). One nation beats its breasts and wails and moans and
cries and whines for years, the British take it on the chin and get on
with fixing things quietly and without fuss.
Of course the Americans aren't eunuchs. Not the women anyway, never
seen a butcher more testosterone-charged tribe of fuglies. Can't say
the same about what passes for American males, of course.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
>
>Ouch!
>I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
Interesting view. Think about the different ways that your two
nations react to terrorist attacks (ie, New York and the more recent
Tube bombings). One nation beats its breasts and wails and moans and
cries and whines for years, the British take it on the chin and get on
with fixing things quietly and without fuss.
Of course the Americans aren't eunuchs. Not the women anyway, never
seen a butcher more testosterone-charged tribe of fuglies. Can't say
the same about what passes for American males, of course.
Aug 5th 2007 | 2:24 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100 hummingbird <[email protected]> wrote:
:>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:02:11 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
:>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
:>>Jim Davis <[email protected]> writes:
:>>> Their seat assignments were on their boarding passes.
:>>> They could have complained *before* boarding the plane.
:>>Members of Islamic cultures have learned that they can
:>>often get their way by making a public scene and putting
:>>members of a European culture on the defensive. Any number
:>>of examples of this can be found in Melanie Phillips' book
:>>_Londonistan_.
:>If you knew that Melanie Phillips is jewish you might consider she
:>has an ulterior motive.
Typical leftist bigotry.
Simply because a person is a Jew the person has an ulterior motive.
A very sickening display of antisemitism.
--
Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
:>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:02:11 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
:>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
:>>Jim Davis <[email protected]> writes:
:>>> Their seat assignments were on their boarding passes.
:>>> They could have complained *before* boarding the plane.
:>>Members of Islamic cultures have learned that they can
:>>often get their way by making a public scene and putting
:>>members of a European culture on the defensive. Any number
:>>of examples of this can be found in Melanie Phillips' book
:>>_Londonistan_.
:>If you knew that Melanie Phillips is jewish you might consider she
:>has an ulterior motive.
Typical leftist bigotry.
Simply because a person is a Jew the person has an ulterior motive.
A very sickening display of antisemitism.
--
Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Aug 5th 2007 | 3:49 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
"Dave Witmarsh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100, hummingbird
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>>>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>>>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>>>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
>>
>>Ouch!
>>I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
>
> Interesting view. Think about the different ways that your two
> nations react to terrorist attacks (ie, New York and the more recent
> Tube bombings). One nation beats its breasts and wails and moans and
> cries and whines for years, the British take it on the chin and get on
> with fixing things quietly and without fuss.
>
Take it on the chin?
My sweet ass! After reading the moans and groans and massive bewailing
over your recent floods, by our normal standards little more than rising
creeks and stopped up storm drains, the rumors of the Nanny State have
certainly come true. You would have thought that Noah was afloat and
drifting through the streets of Oxford. My neighbor, just returned from a
conference in the town said it was a bit damp, but no worse than when Waco
Creek carried off the lumber yard and blocked the Clay Street Diversion
Channel, drowning a couple of unsuspecting teenage paint sniffers "huffing"
under a bridge. Until the TV pictures came along, a few deep puddles and a
stagnant backup or two, your media were trying to convince us it was the Ole
Mississip' in full spate, carrying off live stock and outhouses on the crest
of the flood. No such luck, although some of us were waiting for Fleet
Ditch to reemerge in daylight after a long absence and scour the Augean
Stables of the neighborhood.
For us, come the occasional monsoon, "Boil Water" orders are the norm for
countless rural and small time 'Merkins. From the sounds of things, you
Brits were awesomely inconvenienced waiting for bottled water deliveries.
As a comparison, the loss of life (admittedly all too often fools attempting
to drive across "Low Water Crossings" topped with water running full bore)
in this Summer's floods in Central Texas alone far outweighed any human
casualties in the UK. As for livestock, we haven't even gotten around to
counting cows headed out into the Gulf yet. Combined with your hoof and
mouth case, you can expect to pay more for beef this Winter (and even more
because of foolish decisions to encourage - by tax subsidy - distilling
ethanol from the corn used to feed livestock, running the price of cattle
and hog feeding (and the market price at the butcher's counter) into the
stratosphere.
Then there were your complaints of "local authorities not clearing the
drains". Typical British understatement, or an admission that in the
Scuttled H'aisles you tiresome twits and gormless wankers have surrendered
responsibility for local government to some amorphous (and ineffective
higher authority)?
That's our battle, as the US media fails to understand that in ain't the
federal government (and the US taxpayer) that is responsible for and should
rebuild the bridge in Minneapolis, but the Minnesota Highway Department that
*****ed up, and the folks in Minnesota who should be faced with the bill.
The US gives states money to build Interstate Highways, and then leaves the
states to keep'em up. But then, Minnesota, home of the "Farm Labor" party,
the closest thing we have to Pabulum-nourished Utopians, are always looking
for others to cure their self-induced and delusional lack of accountability.
A few "Town Councilors" hung from convenient lampposts, and next Summer the
storm drains will be clear!
A paredon los aristos!
;-P TMO
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100, hummingbird
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>>>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>>>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>>>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
>>
>>Ouch!
>>I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
>
> Interesting view. Think about the different ways that your two
> nations react to terrorist attacks (ie, New York and the more recent
> Tube bombings). One nation beats its breasts and wails and moans and
> cries and whines for years, the British take it on the chin and get on
> with fixing things quietly and without fuss.
>
Take it on the chin?
My sweet ass! After reading the moans and groans and massive bewailing
over your recent floods, by our normal standards little more than rising
creeks and stopped up storm drains, the rumors of the Nanny State have
certainly come true. You would have thought that Noah was afloat and
drifting through the streets of Oxford. My neighbor, just returned from a
conference in the town said it was a bit damp, but no worse than when Waco
Creek carried off the lumber yard and blocked the Clay Street Diversion
Channel, drowning a couple of unsuspecting teenage paint sniffers "huffing"
under a bridge. Until the TV pictures came along, a few deep puddles and a
stagnant backup or two, your media were trying to convince us it was the Ole
Mississip' in full spate, carrying off live stock and outhouses on the crest
of the flood. No such luck, although some of us were waiting for Fleet
Ditch to reemerge in daylight after a long absence and scour the Augean
Stables of the neighborhood.
For us, come the occasional monsoon, "Boil Water" orders are the norm for
countless rural and small time 'Merkins. From the sounds of things, you
Brits were awesomely inconvenienced waiting for bottled water deliveries.
As a comparison, the loss of life (admittedly all too often fools attempting
to drive across "Low Water Crossings" topped with water running full bore)
in this Summer's floods in Central Texas alone far outweighed any human
casualties in the UK. As for livestock, we haven't even gotten around to
counting cows headed out into the Gulf yet. Combined with your hoof and
mouth case, you can expect to pay more for beef this Winter (and even more
because of foolish decisions to encourage - by tax subsidy - distilling
ethanol from the corn used to feed livestock, running the price of cattle
and hog feeding (and the market price at the butcher's counter) into the
stratosphere.
Then there were your complaints of "local authorities not clearing the
drains". Typical British understatement, or an admission that in the
Scuttled H'aisles you tiresome twits and gormless wankers have surrendered
responsibility for local government to some amorphous (and ineffective
higher authority)?
That's our battle, as the US media fails to understand that in ain't the
federal government (and the US taxpayer) that is responsible for and should
rebuild the bridge in Minneapolis, but the Minnesota Highway Department that
*****ed up, and the folks in Minnesota who should be faced with the bill.
The US gives states money to build Interstate Highways, and then leaves the
states to keep'em up. But then, Minnesota, home of the "Farm Labor" party,
the closest thing we have to Pabulum-nourished Utopians, are always looking
for others to cure their self-induced and delusional lack of accountability.
A few "Town Councilors" hung from convenient lampposts, and next Summer the
storm drains will be clear!
A paredon los aristos!
;-P TMO
Aug 5th 2007 | 7:15 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>>>have their day in court before such action is considered.
>>
>>Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
>>plane?
>
>Nope.
Then how would you give individuals their day in court before they are
dragged off of a plane in handcuffs after interfering with the operation
of a given flight?
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>>>have their day in court before such action is considered.
>>
>>Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
>>plane?
>
>Nope.
Then how would you give individuals their day in court before they are
dragged off of a plane in handcuffs after interfering with the operation
of a given flight?
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
Aug 6th 2007 | 4:15 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:24:28 +0300 'Binyamin Dissen'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100 hummingbird <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>:>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:02:11 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
>:>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>:>>Jim Davis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>:>>> Their seat assignments were on their boarding passes.
>:>>> They could have complained *before* boarding the plane.
>
>:>>Members of Islamic cultures have learned that they can
>:>>often get their way by making a public scene and putting
>:>>members of a European culture on the defensive. Any number
>:>>of examples of this can be found in Melanie Phillips' book
>:>>_Londonistan_.
>
>:>If you knew that Melanie Phillips is jewish you might consider she
>:>has an ulterior motive.
>
>Typical leftist bigotry.
Rotfl. I've been called many things in my life but rarely Leftist.
Methinks you are muddled between Left/Right.
>Simply because a person is a Jew the person has an ulterior motive.
For a very vociferous Jewess to write a book called 'Londonistan'
there's a high likelyhood that she's going to put her own Jewish bias
into it. Add to that, she appears on a few TV/Radio progs occasionally
(eg BBC Question Time) and rants about Islam/Moslems. Her newspaper
columns add further to that view. She promotes the view that Islam is
trying to take over the world and must be stopped any way how.
I'm not saying she's always wrong, only that observers *must* see her
thru the correct prism and know where she's coming from.
>A very sickening display of antisemitism.
You are indeed sick. I take it from your own name that you are Jewish?
perhaps even Israeli? so I expect that sort of nonsense from you.
Get a life.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100 hummingbird <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>:>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:02:11 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
>:>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>:>>Jim Davis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>:>>> Their seat assignments were on their boarding passes.
>:>>> They could have complained *before* boarding the plane.
>
>:>>Members of Islamic cultures have learned that they can
>:>>often get their way by making a public scene and putting
>:>>members of a European culture on the defensive. Any number
>:>>of examples of this can be found in Melanie Phillips' book
>:>>_Londonistan_.
>
>:>If you knew that Melanie Phillips is jewish you might consider she
>:>has an ulterior motive.
>
>Typical leftist bigotry.
Rotfl. I've been called many things in my life but rarely Leftist.
Methinks you are muddled between Left/Right.
>Simply because a person is a Jew the person has an ulterior motive.
For a very vociferous Jewess to write a book called 'Londonistan'
there's a high likelyhood that she's going to put her own Jewish bias
into it. Add to that, she appears on a few TV/Radio progs occasionally
(eg BBC Question Time) and rants about Islam/Moslems. Her newspaper
columns add further to that view. She promotes the view that Islam is
trying to take over the world and must be stopped any way how.
I'm not saying she's always wrong, only that observers *must* see her
thru the correct prism and know where she's coming from.
>A very sickening display of antisemitism.
You are indeed sick. I take it from your own name that you are Jewish?
perhaps even Israeli? so I expect that sort of nonsense from you.
Get a life.
Aug 6th 2007 | 4:26 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:47:47 +1000 'Dave Witmarsh'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100, hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>>>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>>>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>>>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
>>
>>Ouch!
>>I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
>
>Interesting view. Think about the different ways that your two
>nations react to terrorist attacks (ie, New York and the more recent
>Tube bombings). One nation beats its breasts and wails and moans and
>cries and whines for years, the British take it on the chin and get on
>with fixing things quietly and without fuss.
I can still remember the huge IRA bomb explosion in the City a few
years ago and my parents can (could) remember the blitz, so I suppose
we just shrug and move on. The difference is that 9/11 was America's
first major attack on its own soil and many Americans believed they
were immune to such things. 9/11 taught them otherwise.
>Of course the Americans aren't eunuchs. Not the women anyway, never
>seen a butcher more testosterone-charged tribe of fuglies. Can't say
>the same about what passes for American males, of course.
I may be wrong but the diseases of political correctness and (what
some call) feminazism which have swept across the UK in recent years,
originated in the US and gave licence to it in Blair's govt.
He appointed a number of vociferous wimmens-libbers to ministerial
positions.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:03:38 +0100, hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>>>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>>>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>>>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
>>
>>Ouch!
>>I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
>
>Interesting view. Think about the different ways that your two
>nations react to terrorist attacks (ie, New York and the more recent
>Tube bombings). One nation beats its breasts and wails and moans and
>cries and whines for years, the British take it on the chin and get on
>with fixing things quietly and without fuss.
I can still remember the huge IRA bomb explosion in the City a few
years ago and my parents can (could) remember the blitz, so I suppose
we just shrug and move on. The difference is that 9/11 was America's
first major attack on its own soil and many Americans believed they
were immune to such things. 9/11 taught them otherwise.
>Of course the Americans aren't eunuchs. Not the women anyway, never
>seen a butcher more testosterone-charged tribe of fuglies. Can't say
>the same about what passes for American males, of course.
I may be wrong but the diseases of political correctness and (what
some call) feminazism which have swept across the UK in recent years,
originated in the US and gave licence to it in Blair's govt.
He appointed a number of vociferous wimmens-libbers to ministerial
positions.
Aug 6th 2007 | 4:31 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:15:03 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
>>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>
>>>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>>>>have their day in court before such action is considered.
>>>
>>>Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
>>>plane?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>Then how would you give individuals their day in court before they are
>dragged off of a plane in handcuffs after interfering with the operation
>of a given flight?
"Their day in court" is a term used to mean that all parties should
be allowed their say in the dispute before action is decided.
To have "dragged them off the plane in handcuffs within 10 secs"
as ano poster suggested would have prevented that natural justice.
I'm afraid that such incidents are always going to cause some delay
to other passengers but the aim must be to have procedures in place
to minimise them.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:00:48 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
>>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>
>>>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a society ruled by laws, *someone* has to be sure that all parties
>>>>have their day in court before such action is considered.
>>>
>>>Ahh, so it should have gone to court BEFORE removing them from the
>>>plane?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>Then how would you give individuals their day in court before they are
>dragged off of a plane in handcuffs after interfering with the operation
>of a given flight?
"Their day in court" is a term used to mean that all parties should
be allowed their say in the dispute before action is decided.
To have "dragged them off the plane in handcuffs within 10 secs"
as ano poster suggested would have prevented that natural justice.
I'm afraid that such incidents are always going to cause some delay
to other passengers but the aim must be to have procedures in place
to minimise them.
Aug 6th 2007 | 4:35 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Aug 5, 4:49 pm, "TMOliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Witmarsh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Take it on the chin?
<insert random gay sex reference>
> My sweet ass!
<insert random cock>
> After reading the moans and groans
<moah cock>
> and massive bewailing over your recent floods, by our normal standards little more than rising
> creeks and stopped up storm drains,
But then, your "normal standard" is New Orleans. Dark chappies raping
babies in a vast toxic sludge, while sundry hasbeen celebs appear on
TV to exploit the carnage... I hate the English as much as the next
man, but its unfair to make this comparison just as its unfair to
point out how third world shit holes like Bangledesh endure annual
flooding.
> "Dave Witmarsh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Take it on the chin?
<insert random gay sex reference>
> My sweet ass!
<insert random cock>
> After reading the moans and groans
<moah cock>
> and massive bewailing over your recent floods, by our normal standards little more than rising
> creeks and stopped up storm drains,
But then, your "normal standard" is New Orleans. Dark chappies raping
babies in a vast toxic sludge, while sundry hasbeen celebs appear on
TV to exploit the carnage... I hate the English as much as the next
man, but its unfair to make this comparison just as its unfair to
point out how third world shit holes like Bangledesh endure annual
flooding.
Aug 6th 2007 | 6:15 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Their day in court" is a term used to mean that all parties should
>be allowed their say in the dispute before action is decided.
>To have "dragged them off the plane in handcuffs within 10 secs"
>as ano poster suggested would have prevented that natural justice.
>
>I'm afraid that such incidents are always going to cause some delay
>to other passengers but the aim must be to have procedures in place
>to minimise them.
Indeed. The procedures are fairly simple:
1) Sit down, in your assigned seat. Put your seatbelt on, leave it on
at all times when the seatbelt sign is light up.
2) Follow the instructions of all posted placards, signs, and the flight
crew.
If you can't accomplish the above, you don't get to fly.
Fairly simple, fairly easy to understand. If you don't like your seats,
either accept that you might need to deal with it, or do something about
it before the door is closed.
Special needs need to be addressed before boarding (and likely well
before checking in) -- You can't wait until the plane is ready to depart
to let them know you have special needs and expect to be accommodated.
Fairly simple rules, I'd think.
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Their day in court" is a term used to mean that all parties should
>be allowed their say in the dispute before action is decided.
>To have "dragged them off the plane in handcuffs within 10 secs"
>as ano poster suggested would have prevented that natural justice.
>
>I'm afraid that such incidents are always going to cause some delay
>to other passengers but the aim must be to have procedures in place
>to minimise them.
Indeed. The procedures are fairly simple:
1) Sit down, in your assigned seat. Put your seatbelt on, leave it on
at all times when the seatbelt sign is light up.
2) Follow the instructions of all posted placards, signs, and the flight
crew.
If you can't accomplish the above, you don't get to fly.
Fairly simple, fairly easy to understand. If you don't like your seats,
either accept that you might need to deal with it, or do something about
it before the door is closed.
Special needs need to be addressed before boarding (and likely well
before checking in) -- You can't wait until the plane is ready to depart
to let them know you have special needs and expect to be accommodated.
Fairly simple rules, I'd think.
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
Aug 6th 2007 | 8:59 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:15:05 -0600 'DevilsPGD'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Their day in court" is a term used to mean that all parties should
>>be allowed their say in the dispute before action is decided.
>>To have "dragged them off the plane in handcuffs within 10 secs"
>>as ano poster suggested would have prevented that natural justice.
>>
>>I'm afraid that such incidents are always going to cause some delay
>>to other passengers but the aim must be to have procedures in place
>>to minimise them.
>
>Indeed. The procedures are fairly simple:
>
>1) Sit down, in your assigned seat. Put your seatbelt on, leave it on
>at all times when the seatbelt sign is light up.
>
>2) Follow the instructions of all posted placards, signs, and the flight
>crew.
>
>If you can't accomplish the above, you don't get to fly.
>
>Fairly simple, fairly easy to understand. If you don't like your seats,
>either accept that you might need to deal with it, or do something about
>it before the door is closed.
>
>Special needs need to be addressed before boarding (and likely well
>before checking in) -- You can't wait until the plane is ready to depart
>to let them know you have special needs and expect to be accommodated.
>
>Fairly simple rules, I'd think.
Perhaps, but neither you nor I were there and cannot be aware of the
full circumstances. Perhaps the passengers *were* assured of special
seating arrangements. Do you know otherwise? I don't. IMHO it is daft
to jump to rash conclusions. That's what happens under mob rule and in
police states.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <[email protected]> hummingbird
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Their day in court" is a term used to mean that all parties should
>>be allowed their say in the dispute before action is decided.
>>To have "dragged them off the plane in handcuffs within 10 secs"
>>as ano poster suggested would have prevented that natural justice.
>>
>>I'm afraid that such incidents are always going to cause some delay
>>to other passengers but the aim must be to have procedures in place
>>to minimise them.
>
>Indeed. The procedures are fairly simple:
>
>1) Sit down, in your assigned seat. Put your seatbelt on, leave it on
>at all times when the seatbelt sign is light up.
>
>2) Follow the instructions of all posted placards, signs, and the flight
>crew.
>
>If you can't accomplish the above, you don't get to fly.
>
>Fairly simple, fairly easy to understand. If you don't like your seats,
>either accept that you might need to deal with it, or do something about
>it before the door is closed.
>
>Special needs need to be addressed before boarding (and likely well
>before checking in) -- You can't wait until the plane is ready to depart
>to let them know you have special needs and expect to be accommodated.
>
>Fairly simple rules, I'd think.
Perhaps, but neither you nor I were there and cannot be aware of the
full circumstances. Perhaps the passengers *were* assured of special
seating arrangements. Do you know otherwise? I don't. IMHO it is daft
to jump to rash conclusions. That's what happens under mob rule and in
police states.
Aug 6th 2007 | 9:56 am
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:59:55 +0100 hummingbird <[email protected]> wrote:
:> IMHO it is daft
:>to jump to rash conclusions.
Except when YOU are jumping to conclusions about JOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ, right?
--
Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
:> IMHO it is daft
:>to jump to rash conclusions.
Except when YOU are jumping to conclusions about JOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ, right?
--
Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Aug 6th 2007 | 12:14 pm
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:56:06 +0300 'Binyamin Dissen'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:59:55 +0100 hummingbird <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>:> IMHO it is daft
>:>to jump to rash conclusions.
>
>Except when YOU are jumping to conclusions about JOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ, right?
Wrong, idiot. Stop emoting and get a grip.
I refer you to my previous post in which I gave you several reasons
why Melanie Phillips can't be trusted to be fair.
Why don't you read it?
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:59:55 +0100 hummingbird <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>:> IMHO it is daft
>:>to jump to rash conclusions.
>
>Except when YOU are jumping to conclusions about JOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZ, right?
Wrong, idiot. Stop emoting and get a grip.
I refer you to my previous post in which I gave you several reasons
why Melanie Phillips can't be trusted to be fair.
Why don't you read it?
