NationStates Jolt Archive

An Israeli and four Angolans got the authentic taste of Freedom after they spoke in their native languages on board a passenger plane in the US. :rolleyes:



Five men were detained on an American Airlines plane Saturday because they spoke in foreign languages and had aircraft flight materials with them, police say.

Fellow passengers became suspicious of the men because they were speaking in foreign languages and had "aircraft flight materials" with them, said Steven Siegel, a spokesman for the FBI office in Newark.

A federal marshal on the plane notified authorities about the behaviour of the men, and they were taken into custody when the plane landed.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/06/detained-060506.html

Also: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/06/passengers.detained.ap/index.html

Erm, if they were up to something, why did they wait until the plane landed and disembarked like law-abiding citizens, thus missing their opportunity? :rolleyes:

What a great way of attracting foreign students.

What a great way of attracting foreign students.



Like they wanted to go to the States, anyway. :p


Edit: I am going to speak entirely in French on my next flight. AP French classes do pay off! :D

What makes this more amusing is that people from Angola were more likely than not speaking PORTUGUESE

Like they wanted to go to the States, anyway. :p


Edit: I am going to speak entirely in French on my next flight. AP French classes do pay off! :D

I'll do German.

What makes this more amusing is that people from Angola were more likely than not speaking PORTUGUESE
Yeah, and you would think that Hebrew would not be completely alien to the US.

Silly foreigners, they should know by now that pure American English is the language of the motherland, and all others will be treated with the suspicion and contempt they fully deserve.

ROFLMAO. Silly un-American fools. They should know better to engage in such conduct. How disrespectful! ;)

ROFLMAO. Silly un-American fools. They should know better to engage in such conduct. How disrespectful! ;)

I think Nadkor beat you to it.


:p

I think Nadkor beat you to it.


:p
Damn. :(

Yeah, and you would think that Hebrew would not be completely alien to the US.

As a jew myself, even though I don't speak it, i know enough to recognize it when it's being spoken. That being said, it does have enough gutteral intonation to betray it as a middle eastern language, and thus I suppose has something to the ear that might sound vaguely Arabic.

But...Portuguese? it's a bloody romance language!

What makes this more amusing is that people from Angola were more likely than not speaking PORTUGUESE

Not necessarily. Portuguese is spoken mainly on Luanda, the capital of Angola, but in the rest, it's mostly African dialects.

Which doesn't undo the fact that the utter morons that did this should have to sell their houses, their cars and their kidneys to pay these five men back for this utter, complete stupidity of arresting people for talking in foreign languages that the sh*t their brains are made of came with.

Not necessarily. Portuguese is spoken mainly on Luanda, the capital of Angola, but in the rest, it's mostly African dialects.



As I said, more likely than not. Yes there's a large segimant that speaks African dialect as their main language, but grab the average person, knowing nothing of their region, and I believe that more likely than not it's Portugese. The World Factbook (which I checked to make sure I was right) lists Portugese as the most spoken language. So yeah, many don't, but as I said, most likely, it was Portugese.

I'll do German.
I'm with you.

Sheisse, Ich besse nicht deutsch sprechen auf Americanishen Flugzuegs.

And what the hell are "aircraft flight materials". Bits of aluminium airlerons? Booklets teaching you how to fly a jumbo? The flight safety card?

Bearing in mind they were educated foreign students, they probably would be speaking Portuguese rather than a rural African dialect.

And what the hell are "aircraft flight materials". Bits of aluminium airlerons? Booklets teaching you how to fly a jumbo? The flight safety card?
Boarding Card probably.

And what the hell are "aircraft flight materials". Bits of aluminium airlerons? Booklets teaching you how to fly a jumbo? The flight safety card?
The UK government can detain people for possessing "materials likely to be of use to a terrorist", so god knows what counts in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if a child's crayon drawing could potentially be construed as threatening.

Boarding Card probably.

I bet they claimed it was a bomb and detonated it on the runway...

"They ain't speakin' English - terrists!"

The UK government can detain people for possessing "materials likely to be of use to a terrorist", so god knows what counts in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if a child's crayon drawing could potentially be construed as threatening.

A child could concievably crawl into the cockpit at a strategic time (IE over the White House) and jam it up the Pilots nose. In the ensuing pain and panic, the pilot would lose control and crash into the White House.

As I said, more likely than not. Yes there's a large segimant that speaks African dialect as their main language, but grab the average person, knowing nothing of their region, and I believe that more likely than not it's Portugese. The World Factbook (which I checked to make sure I was right) lists Portugese as the most spoken language. So yeah, many don't, but as I said, most likely, it was Portugese.

Uhm... Okay. Plus, yes, if they had the cash to fly to the US they most likely were from Luanda.

I'll come up with Brazilian Portuguese, may I? It sounds a tad more "open" than African Portuguese, and our vowels are a tad longer. :)

"They ain't speakin' English - terrists!"
"This is America! We speak English here!" does have a certain ring to it... :D

"This is America! We speak English here!" does have a certain ring to it... :D

It is satisfying to see the hispanic minority be so fruitful. We just might see a Spanish-speaking US in our lifetimes, and that does give me quite a bit of joy. :)

"This is America! We speak English here!" does have a certain ring to it... :D

Yeah, it reminds me of something, uhm, it tastes like... uhm, what was it again? Fruit... no... Fanta... no... Oh, yes! Fascism! Mmm! Tasty! :D

Yeah, and you would think that Hebrew would not be completely alien to the US.

To most Americans it is. In fact, I've met quite a few people who can't recognize French or German.

To most Americans it is. In fact, I've met quite a few people who can't recognize French or German.

I can't read cursive.

It is satisfying to see the hispanic minority be so fruitful. We just might see a Spanish-speaking US in our lifetimes, and that does give me quite a bit of joy. :)

Unfortunately, it'll also be a Roman Catholic US.

Unfortunately, it'll also be a Roman Catholic US.
I'll take Catholicism over Evangelism any day. Those guys love their committees and indexing of dogma so much, any possible cultural threat will be neutralised the moment the Minutes are read and the secretary asks whether there are Any Matters Arising. :p

I'll take Catholicism over Evangelism any day. Those guys love their committees and indexing of dogma so much, any possible cultural threat will be neutralised the moment the Minutes are read and the secretary asks whether there are Any Matters Arising. :p

Aye, but Fass is no big fan of the Catholic church.

Well what really maters is the Nazi-american atitude.

They should have worn one of these:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/terroristrucksack.jpg

They should have worn one of these:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/terroristrucksack.jpg
I love the way it lumps all of 'those funny foreign religions' together.

Look a mountain...Look a molehill!!! This is a nonissue blown out of proportion. From my understanding they had all just completed a helicopter training program and had technical manuels on them. Foreigners with technical manuels imho deserve a second look. Its not like they threw them in prision for months without charges...Security had a concern, they checked it out and determined it was safe and a few hours later released them. Thats what we pay them to do. Im honestly not sure where the source of the critisism is. Are you saying that because a few people that were not speaking English got questioned by security that only foreign speaking people get checked and searched? I know plenty of english speaking Americans that have been detained and briefly questioned. I dont get it.

Unfortunately, it'll also be a Roman Catholic US.

As opposed to the loony evangelical one it is today?

Look a mountain...Look a molehill!!!
Depending on where you stand... they are the same.

;)

Look a mountain...Look a molehill!!! This is a nonissue blown out of proportion. From my understanding they had all just completed a helicopter training program and had technical manuels on them. Foreigners with technical manuels imho deserve a second look. Its not like they threw them in prision for months without charges...Security had a concern, they checked it out and determined it was safe and a few hours later released them. Thats what we pay them to do. Im honestly not sure where the source of the critisism is. Are you saying that because a few people that were not speaking English got questioned by security that only foreign speaking people get checked and searched? I know plenty of english speaking Americans that have been detained and briefly questioned. I dont get it.

Maybe these guys had tests? Had important meetings? You're not supposed to detain people for hours for free. If they had lost job interviews over this, would they ever be repayed?

Look a mountain...Look a molehill!!! This is a nonissue blown out of proportion. From my understanding they had all just completed a helicopter training program and had technical manuels on them. Foreigners with technical manuels imho deserve a second look. Its not like they threw them in prision for months without charges...Security had a concern, they checked it out and determined it was safe and a few hours later released them. Thats what we pay them to do. Im honestly not sure where the source of the critisism is. Are you saying that because a few people that were not speaking English got questioned by security that only foreign speaking people get checked and searched? I know plenty of english speaking Americans that have been detained and briefly questioned. I dont get it.
'Aircraft flight materials' could be anything, we don't know if it was technical manuals or not. And security didn't have a concern, it was the passengers that expressed a concern, wasn't it?

'Aircraft flight materials' could be anything, we don't know if it was technical manuals or not. And security didn't have a concern, it was the passengers that expressed a concern, wasn't it?
Maybe they bought a copy of this (http://www.historyofpia.com/747-covers.jpg) and a soft drink from a concourse shop before boarding the plane. :eek:

'Aircraft flight materials' could be anything, we don't know if it was technical manuals or not. And security didn't have a concern, it was the passengers that expressed a concern, wasn't it?

Either way, security had a duty to check it out. They did so, it was nothing, they were released. Whats the news story?

Maybe they bought a copy of this (http://www.historyofpia.com/747-covers.jpg) and a soft drink from a concourse shop before boarding the plane. :eek:
That's all the evidence I need, lets kill them and nuke whatever country it is they come from. And all the ones around them too.

Either way, security had a duty to check it out. They did so, it was nothing, they were released. Whats the news story?
People on a plane got freaked out by people on a plane being foriegn. This is amusing.

People on a plane got freaked out by people on a plane being foriegn. This is amusing.

Slightly amusing, maybe. Newsworthy? Hardly. And personally, id much rather have airline passengers hyper aware and mildly xenophobic then to be oblivious to all that happens around them. We learned that lesson the hard way.

Slightly amusing, maybe. Newsworthy? Hardly. And personally, id much rather have airline passengers hyper aware and mildly xenophobic then to be oblivious to all that happens around them. We learned that lesson the hard way.
I hate to be the one to tell you(not really) but just beacuse something isn't newsworthy doesn't mean it won't get printed.

When has an incident on a plane ever been caused by passengers being oblivious to the foriegners on a plane?

Aye, but Fass is no big fan of the Catholic church.
Neither am I

When has an incident on a plane ever been caused by passengers being oblivious to the foriegners on a plane?

I was referring to 9/11. Let me explain my viewpoint. I firmly believe that should another 9/11 type attack happen, that the hijackers will be dogpiled by a sea of angry humanity before they finish standing up and saying thier first sentence. "This is a hijargh".....thud. There have been multiple occasions post 9/11 where passengers have jumped on and secured crazy people etc that were threatening the safety of the plane.( Bomb threats, others trying to open the plane doors etc) Passengers arnt going to cower in the back anymore.

I was referring to 9/11. Let me explain my viewpoint. I firmly believe that should another 9/11 type attack happen, that the hijackers will be dogpiled by a sea of angry humanity before they finish standing up and saying thier first sentence. "This is a hijargh".....thud. There have been multiple occasions post 9/11 where passengers have jumped on and secured crazy people etc that were threatening the safety of the plane.( Bomb threats, others trying to open the plane doors etc) Passengers arnt going to cower in the back anymore.

That still doesn't mean you should jump on anyone who looks even remotely suspicious. They were reading technical manuals; if they were terrorists, why the hell would they be reading them then? It would aurely give them away and get them pounced on, just as it happened.

The next time I fly, I'm going to try and pick up a similar technical manual and see if I get pounced on. I guarantee you I won't.


EDIT: Anyway, why would terrorists try another 9/11. They'll have realised it was a once-only and can't be used again for exactly this reason.

I was referring to 9/11. Let me explain my viewpoint. I firmly believe that should another 9/11 type attack happen, that the hijackers will be dogpiled by a sea of angry humanity before they finish standing up and saying thier first sentence. "This is a hijargh".....thud. There have been multiple occasions post 9/11 where passengers have jumped on and secured crazy people etc that were threatening the safety of the plane.( Bomb threats, others trying to open the plane doors etc) Passengers arnt going to cower in the back anymore.
That just contributes to the absurdity of this situation. If what you say is true then why would anyone try it again, when there are plenty of other ways to kill people.

Doesn't surprise me at all. A housemate of mine went to Utah last September, and when he landed in America he was questioned by officials because he had a Serbian stamp on his passport. Bearing in mind he's a typical west country kinda guy, it's pathetic.

Doesn't surprise me at all. A housemate of mine went to Utah last September, and when he landed in America he was questioned by officials because he had a Serbian stamp on his passport. Bearing in mind he's a typical west country kinda guy, it's pathetic.

Five years on, 9/11 is having even further-reaching consequences. It's turned the US into a paranoid nation so scared that they'll jump at anyone who looks even remotely foreign or suspicious. Al Quaeda wins again...

I was referring to 9/11. Let me explain my viewpoint. I firmly believe that should another 9/11 type attack happen, that the hijackers will be dogpiled by a sea of angry humanity before they finish standing up and saying thier first sentence. "This is a hijargh".....thud. There have been multiple occasions post 9/11 where passengers have jumped on and secured crazy people etc that were threatening the safety of the plane.( Bomb threats, others trying to open the plane doors etc) Passengers arnt going to cower in the back anymore.

Yes, but attacking, hampering or inconveniencing people that were taking care of their damn business is plain wrong. You'd cry foul if you were stopped for 4 hours, being innocent, and, say, lost a chance of a date, wouldn't you?

That still doesn't mean you should jump on anyone who looks even remotely suspicious.



I dunno, i would say these are exactly the people security should be checking out. I highly doubt terorists are going to be running thru the airport with turbans and Osama Bin Laden beards and blood on thier shawls with I hate America tattooed on thier foreheads.

Five years on, 9/11 is having even further-reaching consequences. It's turned the US into a paranoid nation so scared that they'll jump at anyone who looks even remotely foreign or suspicious. Al Quaeda wins again...

Ladies and gentlemen, the man has a point.

Yes, but attacking, hampering or inconveniencing people that were taking care of their damn business is plain wrong. You'd cry foul if you were stopped for 4 hours, being innocent, and, say, lost a chance of a date, wouldn't you?

Sorry but the security of my plane and my Country is > than you missing your date.

And by the way oh please give me a break. I went to Canada last week , im as white and as Amarican as can be, i was born less then 90 miles from the point of crossing and i STILL sat in customs for 3 hours. Didnt search anything, just did paperwork and waited in lines to go wait in other lines. Wheres the outrage? What about my plans with a date with Suzy? Give me a break.

I dunno, i would say these are exactly the people security should be checking out. I highly doubt terorists are going to be running thru the airport with turbans and Osama Bin Laden beards and blood on thier shawls with I hate America tattooed on thier foreheads.

You're still unwittingly doing the terrorists job far better than they can now. You're playing right into their hands by doing this and being so paranoid.

Sorry but the security of my plane and my Country is > than you missing your date.

...Technically, > means "is greater than", so the above statment reads "Sorry but the security of my plane and my Country is is greater than than you missing your date".


Just saying. You can keep doing what you're doing.

That just contributes to the absurdity of this situation. If what you say is true then why would anyone try it again, when there are plenty of other ways to kill people.

Yet the World Trade Center was attacked by the same terrorists 2x in 8 years. So whos life are you willing to bet that they wont do a 9/11 again?

I was referring to 9/11. Let me explain my viewpoint. I firmly believe that should another 9/11 type attack happen, that the hijackers will be dogpiled by a sea of angry humanity before they finish standing up and saying thier first sentence. "This is a hijargh".....thud. There have been multiple occasions post 9/11 where passengers have jumped on and secured crazy people etc that were threatening the safety of the plane.( Bomb threats, others trying to open the plane doors etc) Passengers arnt going to cower in the back anymore.
Yes, attacking men who are trying to hijack a plane is a wonderful idea. Especially if they are trained terrorists who have been preparing for this for months. And what'd be better is if the passengers tackled some guy with the detonator to a bomb in his hand. In most cases sitting quietly and being scared is the best thing passengers can do, attacking the hijackers/whoever could very well provoke them into killing passengers or detonating a bomb.

Yet the World Trade Center was attacked by the same terrorists 2x in 8 years. So whos life are you willing to bet that they wont do a 9/11 again?
It was attacked in two different ways. The chances of anyone ever ebing able to hijack a plane ever again are tiny because people now realise that planes are great for suicide attacks.

Yet the World Trade Center was attacked by the same terrorists 2x in 8 years. So whos life are you willing to bet that they wont do a 9/11 again?

In two different ways, old chum. Bopmb on the ground, then planes into the buildings themselves.

hah brilliant...

Sorry but the security of my plane and my Country is > than you missing your date.

And by the way oh please give me a break. I went to Canada last week , im as white and as Amarican as can be, i was born less then 90 miles from the point of crossing and i STILL sat in customs for 3 hours. Didnt search anything, just did paperwork and waited in lines to go wait in other lines. Wheres the outrage? What about my plans with a date with Suzy? Give me a break.
There is no outrage here. Rember, the whole point of this is that people get scared when foriegners go on planes and speak foriegn languages.

Yes, attacking men who are trying to hijack a plane is a wonderful idea. Especially if they are trained terrorists who have been preparing for this for months. And what'd be better is if the passengers tackled some guy with the detonator to a bomb in his hand.

Can you think of a single other way the passengers could have prevented 9/11? Anger management classes perhaps? Had people followed your recommendation we would have had to pick out pieces of United 93 from the Capitol building or the White House

Sorry but the security of my plane and my Country is > than you missing your date.

And by the way oh please give me a break. I went to Canada last week , im as white and as Amarican as can be, i was born less then 90 miles from the point of crossing and i STILL sat in customs for 3 hours. Didnt search anything, just did paperwork and waited in lines to go wait in other lines. Wheres the outrage? What about my plans with a date with Suzy? Give me a break.

Were you jumped on and detained? Doesn't sound like it to me.

Can you think of a single other way the passengers could have prevented 9/11? Anger management classes perhaps?

Well, no offense, but they didn't really seem to do much the last time. They might have stopped one plane. One, out of four. Not great odds really. Plus, what if they're not terrorists but, say, hijackers who just want them as hostages until they get to Country X, and release them after the land sort of thing. Start jumping people then and they might just decide to screw the plan and massacre everyone instead.

I dunno, i would say these are exactly the people security should be checking out. I highly doubt terorists are going to be running thru the airport with turbans and Osama Bin Laden beards and blood on thier shawls with I hate America tattooed on thier foreheads.
heh no, but the particularly amusing thing is that "speaking a foreign language" now counts as suspicous, apparently. :rolleyes:

heh no, but the particularly amusing thing is that "speaking a foreign language" now counts as suspicous, apparently. :rolleyes:

Maybe alongside the technical manual, I should start speaking French to the people next to me...

What really burns me up is the slim media coverage this story has received. And what little you see, like the articles posted here, are very nonchalant and casual, as if to say "yeah, some guys were arrested for no reason, but they were let go, so what?" :headbang: Paranoid bastards...:mad:

heh no, but the particularly amusing thing is that "speaking a foreign language" now counts as suspicous, apparently. :rolleyes:

I think thats a false impression. What if hypothetically, during that day at the airport, they stopped and questioned and briefly detained 30 people over the course of the day. 18 spoke english and 12 spoke foreign languages Then someone chooses to write a newspaper article about one incident of those 30 for the day. Without actually knowing this data can you honestly draw any reasonable conclusions that people that are speaking foreign languages are being treated any differently then anyone else is?

Maybe alongside the technical manual, I should start speaking French to the people next to me...
well i'll admit reading a technical manual to aircraft while on a plane is slightly odd, but the language thing is simply ignorant, or insulting... i can't decide which.

you speak french and i'll speak german - we'll have them running for the hills in no time! :p
or does it have to be an arabic sounding language to really get people's backs up? ...

Can you think of a single other way the passengers could have prevented 9/11? Anger management classes perhaps? Had people followed your recommendation we would have had to pick out pieces of United 93 from the Capitol building or the White House
The passengers are not charged with the defence of the nation the plane they are in is flying to.

I think thats a false impression. What if hypothetically, during that day at the airport, they stopped and questioned and briefly detained 30 people over the course of the day. 18 spoke english and 12 spoke foreign languages Then someone chooses to write a newspaper article about one incident of those 30 for the day. Without actually knowing this data can you honestly draw any reasonable conclusions that people that are speaking foreign languages are being treated any differently then anyone else is?

This wasn't some random inspection. They were arrested as they got off of the aircraft and taken into custody by the authorities. They weren't calmly ushered aside when coming off of the plane. They were hauled off as if they really were terrorists.

well i'll admit reading a technical manual to aircraft while on a plane is slightly odd, but the language thing is simply ignorant, or insulting... i can't decide which.

you speak french and i'll speak german - we'll have them running for the hills in no time! :p
or does it have to be an arabic sounding language to really get people's backs up? ...

Hey, more people for German is good with me...what's the list for that now?

P.S. Ah yes, Me, BLARGistania, and PM. Woo!

I think thats a false impression. What if hypothetically, during that day at the airport, they stopped and questioned and briefly detained 30 people over the course of the day. 18 spoke english and 12 spoke foreign languages Then someone chooses to write a newspaper article about one incident of those 30 for the day. Without actually knowing this data can you honestly draw any reasonable conclusions that people that are speaking foreign languages are being treated any differently then anyone else is?
These people were reported to security because they were speaking Portuguese, or possibly an African language(I say this as 4 of them were Angolan, it's more likely the one Israeli spoke their language than those 4 spoke his. Or so I believe). Clearly people speaking foriegn languages are being treated differently. Prehaps not by security, but by the general public.

I think thats a false impression. What if hypothetically, during that day at the airport, they stopped and questioned and briefly detained 30 people over the course of the day. 18 spoke english and 12 spoke foreign languages Then someone chooses to write a newspaper article about one incident of those 30 for the day. Without actually knowing this data can you honestly draw any reasonable conclusions that people that are speaking foreign languages are being treated any differently then anyone else is?
you can't draw any conclusions either based on that logic as you have no evidence that these weren't, in fact, the only men detained all day. in fact the entire news story is moot if you think that way.

however, my point is in this particular instance where these particular people were detained, the thing that aroused suspicion amongst some of the other passengers and the flight marshall was, in part, the fact they were speaking a foreign language. that was my point and thing i find silly - i mean, foreign people... on planes? in your country? having the audacity to speak their own language? god forbid... must be up to no good.

i will concede that people do speak foreign languages on planes quite a lot, i should think, and a small percentage of them are detained. however in this case that was enough, at least in part, to warrant suspicion. if they had been speaking english, been caucasian, and still been looking through aviation manuals, would they still have been treated as suspicious i wonder?

Hey, more people for German is good with me...what's the list for that now?
I'll speak Irish. That'll be about 3 different languages. All the people will die of a heart attack as they rush to tackle us.

I'll speak Irish. That'll be about 3 different languages. All the people will die of a heart attack as they rush to tackle us.

True...But then again, what if we make up more than half the plane? Then people would have to tackle more than one of us each to get us all.

True...But then again, what if we make up more than half the plane? Then people would have to tackle more than one of us each to get us all.
I know, let's arrange to fill a plane with generalites, apart from 5 or 6 seats, and each will speak a different language. As long as I don't have to sit beside one of the other 5.

I know, let's arrange to fill a plane with generalites, apart from 5 or 6 seats, and each will speak a different language. As long as I don't have to sit beside one of the other 5.

Hmmm....That should work... We need a sign-up sheet...and, you know, a topic for it.

Sorry but the security of my plane and my Country is > than you missing your date.

And by the way oh please give me a break. I went to Canada last week , im as white and as Amarican as can be, i was born less then 90 miles from the point of crossing and i STILL sat in customs for 3 hours. Didnt search anything, just did paperwork and waited in lines to go wait in other lines. Wheres the outrage? What about my plans with a date with Suzy? Give me a break.

Too bad there was no security issue here, just some very dumb, very paranoid numbskulls that decided that if the guy is speaking a foreign language he must be a terrorist. If you had a job interview to the chance of your life taken away from you based on this, you'd accept it? It's not about "security", as much as you'd like it to be, it's about "Well, they scared me into becoming a paranoid wreck, so, yes, they won".

By the way, where was the Unabomber born? What language did he speak?

That's what I thought.

I know, let's arrange to fill a plane with generalites, apart from 5 or 6 seats, and each will speak a different language. As long as I don't have to sit beside one of the other 5.

I call window! :D

I call window! :D
I'd rather have a seat in the isle. And I'd be speaking German, English or French :D Maybe even a mixture of those three with "jag pratar inte svenska" and "no hablo espanol" thrown in, just to throw people off! *nods*

I'd rather have a seat in the isle. And I'd be speaking German, English or French :D Maybe even a mixture of those three with "jag pratar inte svenska" and "no hablo espanol" thrown in, just to throw people off! *nods*

Portuguese, Japanese, some Spanish and some German for me!

Nihongo o hanasu!

Don't forget to purchase your copies of Flight International (http://www.historyofpia.com/747-covers.jpg) from the concourse shops, and bring them aboard as carry-on. :rolleyes:

Don't forget to purchase your copies of Flight International (http://www.historyofpia.com/747-covers.jpg) from the concourse shops, and bring them aboard as carry-on. :rolleyes:
Would it make people suspicious if I brought a parachute as my carry-on?

http://www.customchutes.com/images/smileycws.jpg

I'd piss off the rednecks too by speaking spanish!

And then when the police arrest us, we can all just tell them we don't speak a word of english. And they'd have to get over a hundred interpreters just to read us our rights!

Would it make people suspicious if I brought a parachute as my carry-on?
I doubt you'd make it on the plane. You would probably be executed London Underground style at the x-ray machine.

Too bad there was no security issue here, just some very dumb, very paranoid numbskulls

And exactly how does one determine if indeed there is a security issue or not? The only way to determine if there is a security issue is to detain them and ask them questions. Or should security just ignore passenger concerns and not investigate them? Can you imagine the insanity that would ensue if passengers reported anyone for whatever reason and security failed to follow up on it and it turned out to be a real event?
I dont see any paranoid numbskulls. I see rational people that have thier government asking them to remain vigilent and to report things even if they seem minor. So, sometimes people overreact and security gets called for dumb stuff that they are required by law to take seriously. Ok. Again i fail to see the problem here. There is no stupidity at play, there is no paranoia, there is simply an established security procedure that while not perfect, tries to do the best job it can to keep our planes from becomming bombs and passengers have a extremly vague, and widely open to interpretation, mandate to remain extra vigilent. So what exactly do you expect will happen?

So what exactly do you expect will happen?
At the moment, I'm seeing the rest of the world walking away.

At the moment, I'm seeing the rest of the world walking away.

Running, I'd say...


But really, there is no excuse for arresting someone on a plane, hauling them off and interrogating them and embarressing them hugely just because they were reading technical manuals and speaking a foreign language.

To most Americans it is. In fact, I've met quite a few people who can't recognize French or German.
Why should they? Most people in most countries haven't been exposed to anything except their native tongue. Why should we expect them to recognize the differences between languages?

I doubt you'd make it on the plane. You would probably be executed London Underground style at the x-ray machine.
But I get the life-vest under my seat for free? That doesn't make any sense ;)

But I get the life-vest under my seat for free? That doesn't make any sense ;)

Pfft.


Those damn hypocritical airline executives...

And exactly how does one determine if indeed there is a security issue or not? The only way to determine if there is a security issue is to detain them and ask them questions. Or should security just ignore passenger concerns and not investigate them? Can you imagine the insanity that would ensue if passengers reported anyone for whatever reason and security failed to follow up on it and it turned out to be a real event?
I dont see any paranoid numbskulls. I see rational people that have thier government asking them to remain vigilent and to report things even if they seem minor. So, sometimes people overreact and security gets called for dumb stuff that they are required by law to take seriously. Ok. Again i fail to see the problem here. There is no stupidity at play, there is no paranoia, there is simply an established security procedure that while not perfect, tries to do the best job it can to keep our planes from becomming bombs and passengers have a extremly vague, and widely open to interpretation, mandate to remain extra vigilent. So what exactly do you expect will happen?
[ blows whistle ] Illegal use of rantionality on an irrational forum! Ten yard penalty!

[ blows whistle ] Illegal use of rantionality on an irrational forum! Ten yard penalty!

Rationality my arse. They dragged off several men from the airplane, arrested them and had them interrogated because they spoke a foreign language and had books on airplanes.

Rationality my arse. They dragged off several men from the airplane, arrested them and had them interrogated because they spoke a foreign language and had books on airplanes.
And your point?

And your point?

...

That was my point. How in gods name is that suspicious? They were reading books on planes and spoke in a foreign language.


...So...?

And your point?
Paranoia.

...

That was my point. How in gods name is that suspicious? They were reading books on planes and spoke in a foreign language.


...So...?
"briefly detained" doesn't sound like "arrested" to me, but your delicate sensibilities seem to have been violated so we must all immediately stop investigating suspicious or unusual behavior. :rolleyes:

Paranoia.
Bullshit.

...

That was my point. How in gods name is that suspicious? They were reading books on planes and spoke in a foreign language.


...So...?

Oh, you didn't notice? Eutrusca works under a definition of "rational" that differs slightly from that of the world around him. You know, "they MAY be witches so let's burn them" rational.

"briefly detained" doesn't sound like "arrested" to me, but your delicate sensibilities seem to have been violated so we must all immediately stop investigating suspicious or unusual behavior. :rolleyes:

I ask again, how is that suspicious behaviour? Oh, and delicate? How is it 'Delicate' to find it idiotic that people were dragged off of a plane for reading a goddamned book on planes and speaking a foreign language?

I mean, if they were terrorists, wouldn't they have put the book away or not taken it? I mean, it would have been a bit of a bloody giveaway, huh?

Bullshit.

Not really.

"I saw some men speaking something that wasn't english and reading a book on planes!"
"FREEZE!"

Why should they? Most people in most countries haven't been exposed to anything except their native tongue. Why should we expect them to recognize the differences between languages?

Because at 14 I could tell the difference between romance languages, germanic languages, east-Asian languages and middle-east languages. But, then, either I'm a genius or you expect Americans to be pretty dumb.

They dragged off several men from the airplane, arrested them and had them interrogated because they spoke a foreign language and had books on airplanes.
See the emotionally loaded terms you use:

"dragged off" instead of "escorted off" the plane.

"arrested" instead of "detained."

"interrogated" instead of "questioned."

You try to frame the discussion by using negative and inflamatory phraseology, instead of arguing rationally. Then you get upset when someone calls you on it.

You really do need to get your emotions under the control of at least a marginal degree of rationality.

Ah, yes, let's practice the very hypocrasy you're railing against and lump all Americans as the same idiots who arrested these five foreigners! :rolleyes:

Seriously, TG, I expected better of you. Come on. You've had enough contact with Americans on this forum to know better.

As for the foreign students who were arrested, I hope they get something for their troubles. Poor dudes. Ah well, c'est la vie.

See the emotionally loaded terms you use:

"dragged off" instead of "escorted off" the plane.

"arrested" instead of "detained."

"interrogated" instead of "questioned."

You try to frame the discussion by using negative and inflamatory phraseology, instead of arguing rationally. Then you get upset when someone calls you on it.

You really do need to get your emotions under the control of at least a marginal degree of rationality.

I am so sorry to offend. Here, let me rephrase the question, which you've yet to answer, in the apparently more acceptable way:

They escorted off several men from the airplane, detained them and had them questioned because they spoke a foreign language and had books on airplanes.

That still doesn't make it look any better. Still looks paranoid and irrational.

I ask again, how is that suspicious behaviour? Oh, and delicate? How is it 'Delicate' to find it idiotic that people were dragged off of a plane for reading a goddamned book on planes and speaking a foreign language?

I mean, if they were terrorists, wouldn't they have put the book away or not taken it? I mean, it would have been a bit of a bloody giveaway, huh?
There you go again with the heavy-handed phraseology: "dragged off" is not what was done.

And exactly how does one determine if indeed there is a security issue or not? The only way to determine if there is a security issue is to detain them and ask them questions. Or should security just ignore passenger concerns and not investigate them? Can you imagine the insanity that would ensue if passengers reported anyone for whatever reason and security failed to follow up on it and it turned out to be a real event?
I dont see any paranoid numbskulls. I see rational people that have thier government asking them to remain vigilent and to report things even if they seem minor. So, sometimes people overreact and security gets called for dumb stuff that they are required by law to take seriously. Ok. Again i fail to see the problem here. There is no stupidity at play, there is no paranoia, there is simply an established security procedure that while not perfect, tries to do the best job it can to keep our planes from becomming bombs and passengers have a extremly vague, and widely open to interpretation, mandate to remain extra vigilent. So what exactly do you expect will happen?

If they overreacted against YOU you'd be asking for their heads. This kind of vigilance sounds like the 1984-style kind. Don't you remember Al Qaeda claiming it'd take away your freedoms? Well, QED.

I am so sorry to offend. Here, let me rephrase the question, which you've yet to answer, in the apparently more acceptable way:

They escorted off several men from the airplane, detained them and had them questioned because they spoke a foreign language and had books on airplanes.

That still doesn't make it look any better. Still looks paranoid and irrational.
Not at all, especially when you include the fact that the manuals they were reading were aircraft technical manuals, something which you conveniently omit from your sarcastic reply.

EDIT: I note you also deleted the modifier "briefly" from your still loaded description. :rolleyes:

There you go again with the heavy-handed phraseology: "dragged off" is not what was done.

If you could look through the actual phrasing and answer the actual meat of the question, I'd be appreciative. IE, how it is that foreigners reading a book on airplanes somehow constitutes a threat to security.

An Israeli and four Angolans got the authentic taste of Freedom after they spoke in their native languages on board a passenger plane in the US. :rolleyes:



Also: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/06/passengers.detained.ap/index.html

Erm, if they were up to something, why did they wait until the plane landed and disembarked like law-abiding citizens, thus missing their opportunity? :rolleyes:

What a great way of attracting foreign students.
Out of sheer curiosity, why the big smiling face on the thread title?

Not at all, especially when you include the fact that the manuals they were reading were aircraft technical manuals, something which you conveniently omit from your sarcastic reply.

I know they were. That changes nothing. Technical manuals. That could mean anything - say, a book on aircraft engineering or engine builds. It hardly means they're entitled 'Infidel Aircraft Destroying 101' and that those reading them must be terrorists.

If you could look through the actual phrasing and answer the actual meat of the question, I'd be appreciative. IE, how it is that foreigners reading a book on airplanes somehow constitutes a threat to security.
It doesn't. That's why they were briefly detained and questioned, to determine if they were, in fact, a security threat. It's called "taking precautionary measures to prevent great loss of human life." :p

Heh, silly people.
Foreign people that are not terrorists?!?! Impossible!!

It doesn't. That's why they were briefly detained and questioned, to determine if they were, in fact, a security threat. It's called "taking precautionary measures to prevent great loss of human life." :p
Briefly detained my ass.
This could have been handled in 5 minutes, not 4 hours.

I know they were. That changes nothing. Technical manuals. That could mean anything - say, a book on aircraft engineering or engine builds. It hardly means they're entitled 'Infidel Aircraft Destroying 101' and that those reading them must be terrorists.

.

Briefly detained my ass.
This could have been handled in 5 minutes, not 4 hours.
OMG! The inconvenience! The horror! The horror!"

A small price to pay indeed.

Briefly detained my ass.
This could have been handled in 5 minutes, not 4 hours.
This should have been handled in no time. There was no issue. No reason to detain them.

This should have been handled in no time. There was no issue. No reason to detain them.
[ to no one in particular ] Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! :rolleyes:

OMG! The inconvenience! The horror! The horror!"

A small price to pay indeed.

The point being they should never have had to go through that inconvenience. They weren't being a threat - reading a book and being foreign does not make you a terrorist or a threat, despite what some might think...

[ to no one in particular ] Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! :rolleyes:
Hindsight? Let's think about 'foresight'. They speak in a foreign language.

Nope, still don't see any issue.

[ to no one in particular ] Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! :rolleyes:

Hindsight? Well a little, yes, but mostly common sense. An aircraft technical manual could mean anything - a book on engine components, for example - and being foreign doesn't make you a terrorist, obviously. Now if they had books on bombs or gun manufacturing or somesuch, then maybe. Or a knife or weapon. But you'd have to be a goddamn stupid terrorist to still be reading a hijack manual once in the air...

It's just another reason why I'm not going to visit the States any time soon.

Treating visitors from allied nations like criminals and taking their fingerprints was the first reason.

Now this.

Screw it! Just another good reason to spend my holidays and money in the EU, maybe even Asia. China is very hospitable as I recently learned.

(And I thought they were on the right track when they changed the questionaire not to read "Do you have a mental illness or are member of a communist party" anymore.)

OMG! The inconvenience! The horror! The horror!"

A small price to pay indeed.
Okay, Eut, shut up. You're overreacting. Skinny, you too: stop continuing the argument. Obviously detaining them was a gaffe, an error, a mistake to be corrected. But why do we have to make every little error such a huge controversy? Okay, so it happened. It was a mistake. Not all Americans are like that. It's over, done with, and the argument no longer matters. LET'S MOVE ON!

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Okay, Eut, shut up. You're overreacting. Skinny, you too: stop continuing the argument. Obviously detaining them was a gaffe, an error, a mistake to be corrected. But why do we have to make every little error such a huge controversy? Okay, so it happened. It was a mistake. Not all Americans are like that. It's over, done with, and the argument no longer matters. LET'S MOVE ON!

Wait...what? So we should just close the thread? Why, exactly? I don't see people leaving every other thread in NS, do you? General is for arguing, and that's what we're doing. Possibly slightly heatedly, but still rationally.

I summon to the bench... William Shakespeare!

Friends, posters, NSers, lend me your eyes.
I come to dismiss paranoia accusations, not make them.
The evil that Al Qaeda does lives after it;
There was no good, even when they were US-backed.
So let it be with this paranoia. The noble Eutrusca
hath told you it's rational. If it were so, it's a good thing,
and rewarded it should be. By Eutrusca's praising and all the other neocons' - For Eutrusca is an honorable man; so are they all, all honorable men -
I come to dismiss these paranoia points. They sounded reasonable points about fear to me. But Eutrusca says they are rational.
And Eutrusca is an honorable man. These are actions that would not be undertaken against anyone speaking English. Or reading the "right" book.
Did this in the actions seem rational? When the people saw foreigners, they reacted like a nazi would. Did this in the actions seem rational? Rationality should be made of smarter stuff.
Yet Eutrusca says it was rational, and Eutrusca is an honorable man. The Unabomber, the people that attacked Columbine, and others, would be speaking English in that plane, and therefore be able to follow on with their plans. Was this rational?
Yet Eutrusca says this was rational, and Eutrusca is surely an honorable man. I speak not to disprove what Eutrusca has spoke, but here am I to speak what I do know. You all would never do that kind of thing before, not without cause. What cause prompts you, then, to do this now? O judgement! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.
Bear with me. My heart is in the coffin with the freedoms you swore Al Qaeda would not make you relinquish, and I must pause till it comes back to me.

I summon to the bench... William Shakespeare!

Friends, posters, NSers, lend me your eyes.
I come to dismiss paranoia accusations, not make them.
The evil that Al Qaeda does lives after it;
There was no good, even when they were US-backed.
So let it be with this paranoia. The noble Eutrusca
hath told you it's rational. If it were so, it's a good thing,
and rewarded it should be. By Eutrusca's praising and all the other neocons' - For Eutrusca is an honorable man; so are they all, all honorable men -
I come to dismiss these paranoia points. They sounded reasonable points about fear to me. But Eutrusca says they are rational.
And Eutrusca is an honorable man. These are actions that would not be undertaken against anyone speaking English. Or reading the "right" book.
Did this in the actions seem rational? When the people saw foreigners, they reacted like a nazi would. Did this in the actions seem rational? Rationality should be made of smarter stuff.
Yet Eutrusca says it was rational, and Eutrusca is an honorable man. The Unabomber, the people that attacked Columbine, and others, would be speaking English in that plane, and therefore be able to follow on with their plans. Was this rational?
Yet Eutrusca says this was rational, and Eutrusca is surely an honorable man. I speak not to disprove what Eutrusca has spoke, but here am I to speak what I do know. You all would never do that kind of thing before, not without cause. What cause prompts you, then, to do this now? O judgement! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.
Bear with me. My heart is in the coffin with the freedoms you swore Al Qaeda would not make you relinquish, and I must pause till it comes back to me.


Not only makes good points, but is also quite possibly the most interesting way of arguing I've seen, ever.

I wonder what's next? Haiku arguments?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
All energy problems of the US would be solved if you hooked up generators to the founding fathers turning over, nay, rotating in their graves.
Where's Ben Franklin when you need him, huh?

Wait...what? So we should just close the thread? Why, exactly? I don't see people leaving every other thread in NS, do you? General is for arguing, and that's what we're doing. Possibly slightly heatedly, but still rationally.
I just think that both of you are getting way too hot and bothered by all of this. Eut is being his typical self overreacting over every tiny little thing, and you're doing the exact same thing by continuing the argument. Yes, it was a mistake. Yes, Americans were at fault. But so what? It's not like it was a truly crucial matter. No lives were at stake. So why the big deal over it? I just don't get it.

(By the way, I'm someone who loves an argument and will leap into practically any I see. If I think this argument isn't worth it, then it truly isn't. Or at least from my point of view. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. Or a pitcher. Whichever suits you best.)

Not only makes good points, but is also quite possibly the most interesting way of arguing I've seen, ever.

I wonder what's next? Haiku arguments?

*Bows* Thank you! Thank you!

And I always make a point of arguing with style. I did haiku once, yes. :)

Not only makes good points, but is also quite possibly the most interesting way of arguing I've seen, ever.

I wonder what's next? Haiku arguments?
No that was the Whittier thread.

I summon to the bench... William Shakespeare!

Friends, posters, NSers, lend me your eyes.
I come to dismiss paranoia accusations, not make them.
The evil that Al Qaeda does lives after it;
There was no good, even when they were US-backed.
So let it be with this paranoia. The noble Eutrusca
hath told you it's rational. If it were so, it's a good thing,
and rewarded it should be. By Eutrusca's praising and all the other neocons' - For Eutrusca is an honorable man; so are they all, all honorable men -
I come to dismiss these paranoia points. They sounded reasonable points about fear to me. But Eutrusca says they are rational.
And Eutrusca is an honorable man. These are actions that would not be undertaken against anyone speaking English. Or reading the "right" book.
Did this in the actions seem rational? When the people saw foreigners, they reacted like a nazi would. Did this in the actions seem rational? Rationality should be made of smarter stuff.
Yet Eutrusca says it was rational, and Eutrusca is an honorable man. The Unabomber, the people that attacked Columbine, and others, would be speaking English in that plane, and therefore be able to follow on with their plans. Was this rational?
Yet Eutrusca says this was rational, and Eutrusca is surely an honorable man. I speak not to disprove what Eutrusca has spoke, but here am I to speak what I do know. You all would never do that kind of thing before, not without cause. What cause prompts you, then, to do this now? O judgement! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.
Bear with me. My heart is in the coffin with the freedoms you swore Al Qaeda would not make you relinquish, and I must pause till it comes back to me.

Wow. That even sounds like Shakespeare :D Thou hast made my day indeed, dear Sir!

I just think that both of you are getting way too hot and bothered by all of this. Eut is being his typical self overreacting over every tiny little thing, and you're doing the exact same thing by continuing the argument. Yes, it was a mistake. Yes, Americans were at fault. But so what? It's not like it was a truly crucial matter. No lives were at stake. So why the big deal over it? I just don't get it.

(By the way, I'm someone who loves an argument and will leap into practically any I see. If I think this argument isn't worth it, then it truly isn't. Or at least from my point of view. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. Or a pitcher. Whichever suits you best.)

I understand that. My point is that your view seems to go against the thing that is NS General. There are many, many more pointless arguments occuring even right now, yet you're not jumping in to say 'Stop!'. It just seems a little odd; General is where people argue, after all.

Wow. That even sounds like Shakespeare :D
He took a quote from Julius Caesar and ad libbed some words to make it fit the situation. I forget who gave the original speech. I think it might have been Cassius.

I summon to the bench... William Shakespeare!
*Snip*


Heh, nice. Well written.. I like :p

I understand that. My point is that your view seems to go against the thing that is NS General. There are many, many more pointless arguments occuring even right now, yet you're not jumping in to say 'Stop!'. It just seems a little odd; General is where people argue, after all.
Oh. Well, I guess that makes sense. Carry on then. Just don't get too riled up, as I don't think an argument should ascend to the point where your personal feelings are involved.

He took a quote from Julius Caesar and ad libbed some words to make it fit the situation. I forget who gave the original speech. I think it might have been Cassius.
'Twas Mark Antony.

He took a quote from Julius Caesar and ad libbed some words to make it fit the situation. I forget who gave the original speech. I think it might have been Cassius.
Ah! I see. ;)
Just another great Shakespearean work that I do own but have yet to read...

I just think that both of you are getting way too hot and bothered by all of this. Eut is being his typical self overreacting over every tiny little thing, and you're doing the exact same thing by continuing the argument. Yes, it was a mistake. Yes, Americans were at fault. But so what? It's not like it was a truly crucial matter. No lives were at stake. So why the big deal over it? I just don't get it.

(By the way, I'm someone who loves an argument and will leap into practically any I see. If I think this argument isn't worth it, then it truly isn't. Or at least from my point of view. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. Or a pitcher. Whichever suits you best.)

Shhhhh!

This is one of those arguments that's fun to watch, if not for any intellectual content than for entertainment value. Let them have at it and maybe we'll see if someone can top that Shakespearean post.

Here, have some popcorn.

*pushes the tub of popcorn over to Kyronea*

He took a quote from Julius Caesar and ad libbed some words to make it fit the situation. I forget who gave the original speech. I think it might have been Cassius.

Exactly. Why I said I summoned Shakespeare to the bench. And do check other threads I post on, I do this occasionally. ;)

Shhhhh!

This is one of those arguments that's fun to watch, if not for any intellectual content than for entertainment value. Let them have at it and maybe we'll see if someone can top that Shakespearean post.

Here, have some popcorn.

*pushes the tub of popcorn over to Kyronea*

*Ahem*

To...Be...Or...Not...To...


Umm.....Ehrrmm...


LINE!

*Ahem*

To...Be...Or...Not...To...


Umm.....Ehrrmm...


LINE!

*whispers*
To be or not to be Paranoid. ;)

But it has yet to top mine. ;)

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/jarkko.vehniainen/kuvat/500_ozzy.jpg

"Play paranoid" :D

*Ahem*

To...Be...Or...Not...To...


Umm.....Ehrrmm...


LINE!
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

Yay for my memory.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

Yay for my memory.

You wrote that from memory? My god, sir, now that is a feat.

You wrote that from memory? My god, sir, now that is a feat.

Fie! I bet the periodic table would be better. :p

You wrote that from memory? My god, sir, now that is a feat.

Aww man, and right when I was getting praised on... :p

He took a quote from Julius Caesar and ad libbed some words to make it fit the situation. I forget who gave the original speech. I think it might have been Cassius.

Marc Antony, "I come to bury Ceasar not to praise him" speech. Begins with the famous line "friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears."

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
Please show me the document that says "the right to not be delayed" has anything whatsoever to do with "essential liberty." If you're going to quote someone, at least find a quote that pertains to the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

You wrote that from memory? My god, sir, now that is a feat.
Yeah, it's useful sometimes. It's hardly photographic, but some things stick. Like that speech.

Siphon: Aye. I knew it was the "bury Caesar" speech. I'd just forgotten who gave it.

Please show me the document that says "the right to not be delayed" has anything whatsoever to do with "essential liberty." If you're going to quote someone, at least find a quote that pertains to the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

Oh hey, he's back. Shocking that.

He took a quote from Julius Caesar and ad libbed some words to make it fit the situation. I forget who gave the original speech. I think it might have been Cassius.
Mark Antony.

Please show me the document that says "the right to not be delayed" has anything whatsoever to do with "essential liberty." If you're going to quote someone, at least find a quote that pertains to the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

By all means, honorable man, I'd assume not being paranoid that you might get attacked by random people that happen to be speaking a foreign language and not being paranoid that you might get accused of terrorism by random xenophobes are pretty much essential liberties, no?

Mark Antony.

Aww, come on, I wrote that for your benefit. Is that all you have to say? You're no fun! :p

Oh hey, he's back. Shocking that.
[ invites Dinaverg to go perform an impossible act upon his own body ] :D

[ invites Dinaverg to go perform an impossible act upon his own body ] :D

You see, THAT'S the difference between me and him. I have STYLE! :-P

Please show me the document that says "the right to not be delayed" has anything whatsoever to do with "essential liberty." If you're going to quote someone, at least find a quote that pertains to the issue at hand. :rolleyes:

The point is, that they should never have been detained in the first place. They had no reason to think they were a danger. They spoke a foreign language and were reading airline technical manuals (Which is so vague that it could mean anything). It would appear they have nothing else to make them look like a danger, and those two things are hardly a cause for alarm. A weapon or a book on bomb-making, maybe/yes, but airline manuals?

You see, THAT'S the difference between me and him. I have STYLE! :-P
Eut's about as stylish as a chaevanistic pig designing dresses for a fashion show.

If there was only one Israeli, who was he talking to in Hebrew?

If there was only one Israeli, who was he talking to in Hebrew?

Who cares? It was a foreign language, so they must be terrorists, right?

(Anyway, why would an Israeli want to blow up an American Plane?)

Please show me the document that says "the right to not be delayed" has anything whatsoever to do with "essential liberty." If you're going to quote someone, at least find a quote that pertains to the issue at hand. :rolleyes:
its not necissarily what happened, but the reasons for it, that gets me...

-snip shakeyspeer-
wonderful :)
good show! :P

Who cares? It was a foreign language, so they must be terrorists, right?

(Anyway, why would an Israeli want to blow up an American Plane?)

They must've figured out he was a durn foreigner somehow. I am just not seeing how. Was he on a cellphone?

Who cares? It was a foreign language, so they must be terrorists, right?

(Anyway, why would an Israeli want to blow up an American Plane?)
Well, it is a valid question, though he might have been on a cell phone or just muttering to himself.

As for why: Israel has as many crazies and extremists willing to go ridiculous lengths as any other country. I do agree, however, that the odds of Jewish terrorists attacking the U.S. are minimal at best.

Well, it is a valid question, though he might have been on a cell phone or just muttering to himself.

As for why: Israel has as many crazies and extremists willing to go ridiculous lengths as any other country. I do agree, however, that the odds of Jewish terrorists attacking the U.S. are minimal at best.

Oh, I know. I just thought if he was an Israeli terrorist, wouldn't he have been flying in a Palestinian plane? That would've made more sense.

Well, folks, I have to go study for a literature test tomorrow.

*Bows*

Oh, I know. I just thought if he was an Israeli terrorist, wouldn't he have been flying in a Palestinian plane? That would've made more sense.
True, true. Not much about this makes sense, really. I do, however, understand why the peeps who arrested the foreigners did so. It's possible some of them saw the airline manuals and heard the foreign languages, had a flash back to 9/11, and reacted more on instinct and fear than anything else. Fear can motivate people to do some really weird things sometimes.

Ok time to wake up and smell the coffee. Number one, you can be detained and arrested in the United States and held w/o charge for 48 hours and NONES rights are infringed. Just as you can be detained and questioned for virtually any reason and guess what your rights arnt infringed on. You can be completly innocent of a crime, yet you can be imprisioned and be virtually forced to expend all of your resources you own to prove yourself innocent.Can you even imagine the tens of billions of dollars Americans have spent proving thier innocence? You know how many millenia of man hours innocent Americans are locked up while going thru the system. Im sure NONE of this is news to anyone here, yet your getting worked up over some people that got detained for a few hours and were set free? You need to reset your outrage-o-meter.

Americans don't understand the logic behind terrorism.

The point is, that they should never have been detained in the first place. They had no reason to think they were a danger. They spoke a foreign language and were reading airline technical manuals (Which is so vague that it could mean anything). It would appear they have nothing else to make them look like a danger, and those two things are hardly a cause for alarm. A weapon or a book on bomb-making, maybe/yes, but airline manuals?
If it weren't for the many people who read things which are posted here without posting anything themselves, I would simply ignore most of what you ( and a few others ) post, since the likelihood of ever convincing you approaches zero as a limit. It is for their benefit that I point out the inconsistencies and false assumptions which riddle arguments like this one.

There are any number of situations in which a bit of temporary inconvenience is more than acceptable price to pay to possibily prevent great loss of life. This, IMHO, was one of those situations. Were the passengers a bit paranoid? Perhaps. But in a circumstance where your life could be in danger, as well as the lives of others, some of whom might be members of your family, a bit of paranoia becomes a survival characteristic.

I daresay there are few on here with children who would oppose a bit of inconvenience in return for assurance that their children will be safe. Unless I'm mistaken, most of those who oppose any sort of inconvenience for sake of greater security are very young people with no children and very few responsibilities.

Contrary to what you now believe, you are not going to live forever. There really are terrorists. They really do blow up planes. People really do die. If someone is delayed a few mintues or even a few hours, to insure this doesn't happen, I'm all for it.

Ok time to wake up and smell the coffee. Number one, you can be detained and arrested in the United States and held w/o charge for 48 hours and NONES rights are infringed. Just as you can be detained and questioned for virtually any reason and guess what your rights arnt infringed on. You can be completly innocent of a crime, yet you can be imprisioned and be virtually forced to expend all of your resources you own to prove yourself innocent.Can you even imagine the tens of billions of dollars Americans have spent proving thier innocence? You know how many millenia of man hours innocent Americans are locked up while going thru the system. Im sure NONE of this is news to anyone here, yet your getting worked up over some people that got detained for a few hours and were set free? You need to reset your outrage-o-meter.

There was absolutely no reason for them to be detained. There was nothing suspicious about them. That is the 'outrage', old chum. And also, the whole 48 Hr thing really isn't something to be proud of really, nor is the whole 'Being detained whenever, for however long, for any reason'.

Ok time to wake up and smell the coffee. Number one, you can be detained and arrested in the United States and held w/o charge for 48 hours and NONES rights are infringed. Just as you can be detained and questioned for virtually any reason and guess what your rights arnt infringed on. You can be completly innocent of a crime, yet you can be imprisioned and be virtually forced to expend all of your resources you own to prove yourself innocent.Can you even imagine the tens of billions of dollars Americans have spent proving thier innocence? You know how many millenia of man hours innocent Americans are locked up while going thru the system. Im sure NONE of this is news to anyone here, yet your getting worked up over some people that got detained for a few hours and were set free? You need to reset your outrage-o-meter.
Once again

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

If it weren't for the many people who read things which are posted here without posting anything themselves, I would simply ignore most of what you ( and a few others ) post, since the lieklihood of ever convincing you approaches zero as a limit. It is for their benefit that I point out the inconsistencies and false assumptions which riddle arguments like this one.

There are any number of situations in which a bit of temporary inconvenience is more than acceptable price to pay to possibily prevent great loss of life. This, IMHO, was one of those situations. Were the passengers a bit paranoid? Perhaps. But in a circumstance where your life could be in danger, as well as the lives of others, some of whom might be members of your family, a bit of paranoia becomes a survival characteristic.

I daresay there are few on here with children who would oppose a bit of inconvenience in return for assurance that their children will be safe. Unless I'm mistaken, most of those who oppose any sort of inconvenience for sake of greater security are very young people with no children and very few responsibilities.

Contrary to what you now believe, you are not going to live forever. There really are teorrists. They really do blow up planes. People really do die. If someone is delayed a few mintues or even a few hours, to insure this doesn't happen, I'm all for it.
OH! Now I understand why you're looking at it the way you do. You developed this sense of paranoia and fear while on the battlefield, where danger really did lurk at any time and could strike at any moment. A "rather safe than sorry" way of going about things is the only sensible thing in that situation.

Thing is, Eut, the rest of life doesn't work that way. While I agree caution must be shown, caution to that degree is unnecessary and creates tension that shouldn't exist.

If it weren't for the many people who read things which are posted here without posting anything themselves, I would simply ignore most of what you ( and a few others ) post, since the likelihood of ever convincing you approaches zero as a limit. It is for their benefit that I point out the inconsistencies and false assumptions which riddle arguments like this one.

There are any number of situations in which a bit of temporary inconvenience is more than acceptable price to pay to possibily prevent great loss of life. This, IMHO, was one of those situations. Were the passengers a bit paranoid? Perhaps. But in a circumstance where your life could be in danger, as well as the lives of others, some of whom might be members of your family, a bit of paranoia becomes a survival characteristic.

I daresay there are few on here with children who would oppose a bit of inconvenience in return for assurance that their children will be safe. Unless I'm mistaken, most of those who oppose any sort of inconvenience for sake of greater security are very young people with no children and very few responsibilities.

Contrary to what you now believe, you are not going to live forever. There really are teorrists. They really do blow up planes. People really do die. If someone is delayed a few mintues or even a few hours, to insure this doesn't happen, I'm all for it.

There are terrorists? Really? I'm sure someone like myself has absolutely no idea what that is like, huh? On no wait, we've had a bombing as well. It is my view that Al Quaeda has already won a far more long-lasting victory over you than anything you do in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan can ever even attempt to repeal. It has made your nation so paranoid and frightened to the point that things like this (For which there was no real justification) have become perfectly acceptable.

Once again

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
I find that people that repeatedly spit out old tired quotes instead of thinking with thier own brain and speaking with thier own voice tend not to be taken too seriously. You might just as well start quoting scripture.

I find that people that repeatedly spit out old tired quotes instead of thinking with thier own brain and speaking with thier own voice tend not to be taken too seriously. You might just as well start quoting scripture.
Speak for yourself mate. Said quotes are often applicable. One must simply back up said quote with the rest of one's argument.

I find that people that repeatedly spit out old tired quotes instead of thinking with thier own brain and speaking with thier own voice tend not to be taken too seriously. You might just as well start quoting scripture.

Tired old quote? It is perhaps the most pertinent quote that could be used, and a point in itself. By giving up the freedom of not being randomly searched because one is foreign and has some vaguely described airline manual, your nation and many of its people give up freedom itself in many ways. Even worse is that many see this as acceptable.

I find that people that repeatedly spit out old tired quotes instead of thinking with thier own brain and speaking with thier own voice tend not to be taken too seriously. You might just as well start quoting scripture.
Why say it in my own words when someone else says it so much more eloquent?

Speak for yourself mate. Said quotes are often applicable. One must simply back up said quote with the rest of one's argument.

I believe i did speak for myself...hence the "I find that" part ;)

By giving up the freedom of not being randomly searched because one is foreign and has some vaguely described airline manual, your nation and many of its people give up freedom itself in many ways.

Please name the freedoms that we have given up? We as Americans NEVER EVER had the right to not be detained and questioned by the police. We are searched going into rock concerts,football games. Does that mean Ben Franklin would be pissed? Ben Franklin didnt have WMDS. He was a rational man and a reasonable person and would protect his country from such as those that would use WMDs against us. Of that i have no doubt.

Why say it in my own words when someone else says it so much more eloquent?
Then you should definitely only post with quotes from others.

Out of sheer curiosity, why the big smiling face on the thread title?
Sarcasm.

This is what I have come to expect from America. Sure, someone out there is going to try to justify stuff like this, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes the people involved look xenophobic or just plain insular and ignorant.

To strike a bit of balance, there was recently a story about how a man was detained in London because he was singing along to a punk rock band on the radio on his way to an airport, and the taxi driver misconstrued all the stuff about smashing the system. The guy got reported and ended up missing his flight. The London taxi driver ---> Dumbass (First Class). Again, I have met that type of individual, and my initial surprise quickly wore off.

Do I give a fuck about all the "security" justifications? No. Both cases are paranoid people acting like idiots, naively helping the terrorists and our governments achieve their goals - fear, disruption and erosion of civil liberties. Since malvolent personalities in both systems stand to gain from this climate, these days being an apologist for the over-reaction of security mechanisms goes hand-in-hand with being an apologist for terrorism. Beware people with shared goals.

Sarcasm.

This is what I have come to expect from America. Sure, someone out there is going to try to justify stuff like this, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes the people involved look xenophobic or just plain insular and ignorant.

To strike a bit of balance, there was recently a story about how a man was detained in London because he was singing along to a punk rock band on the radio on his way to an airport, and the taxi driver misconstrued all the stuff about smashing the system. The guy got reported and ended up missing his flight. The London taxi driver ---> Dumbass (First Class). Again, I have met that type of individual, and my initial surprise quickly wore off.

Do I give a fuck about all the "security" justifications? No. Both cases are paranoid people acting like idiots, naively helping the terrorists and our governments achieve their goals - fear, disruption and erosion of civil liberties. Since malvolent personalities in both systems stand to gain from this climate, these days being an apologist for the over-reaction of security mechanisms goes hand-in-hand with being an apologist for terrorism. Beware people with shared goals.

To wit:

Bear with me. My heart is in the coffin with the freedoms you swore Al Qaeda would not make you relinquish, and I must pause till it comes back to me.