BA flights cancelled by refusal of...

[Hawker rider]

OK. I'll jump in too.

Firstly off I know that on European Airline flight, the subject of armed marshalls on board is no new thing, as a matter of fact I know that France and Germany and some of the smaller countries have had armed marshalls on board since the eighties and continued to do so since. The fact that the "normal" public doesn't know about that shows that they are effective in all the ways it was supposed to be.

EL-AL offcoursewith tepecial forces on board arking and hav the whole stuff down to an art, those guys might not even need guns since they are trained to such a high standard.

And as far as intelligence goes, It's a law over here that the CIA and the FBI can't "spy" on citizens within the US without getting a judge to sign off for a wiretapp etc. It has always been an understanding between the Uk and the US that the british intelligence keeps tabs in the US while the US keeps tabs within the Uk and exchange information.

As far as intelligence goes though I would much rather have the British MI-whatever keep a look out for the terrorists than the CIA

PS whoever said that the Israeli method is to rather destroy the airliner then allow it to be highjacked...... please back up your statement as I can recall numerous times that the "safety officers" on baord an EL-AL flight took out the terrorists and kept the people on baord alive and well, but shaken up.

Please give me an instance of an EL-AL flightor any israely airliner beingdeliberatly taken down by the marshalls, butI can't recall that ever happen, so I wonder how you go that point of view

 

[Hawker rider]

Well 350driver that last post really was a smart one!

You agree with suicide bombings ??

Sharon and all of them are nothing more than terrorists, I hope the Palestinians continue to go after them harder than ever and not stop until they are left alone and the killing of innocent women and children come to an end.

I always thought you were pretty informed about a lot of stuff, but in this thread you truly show that you got a little sidetracked somewhere, i hope it's just for once.

Offcourse i am for peace in the middle east, but to backup the palestinians?? i don't think so. Arafat's hands are mighty dirty, it's very surprising that he didn't get taken out a while ago. might I remind you that he also has quite a bit of american blood on his hands, and still you back the palestinians ??

As far as GW goes... offcourse I don't agree with everything he's saying and doing either. and you trust the intelligence agencies to give good inte about airplane terrorists, but you doubt the info they give to our commander in chief that he can't make public, e.g. Iraq/afghanistan?

This country would have been in a lot worse state would Al Gore have been elected. Ever considered that option??

 

[Yaegermeister]

It's a fallacy to equate Israel's (and El Al's) record against terrorism with their history in airline security. One's perfect and the other's bad so don't take the discussion off-track.

It'd be great to have such solid intel that we can always just "not fly the trip." But the reality is that this intel is going to be tenous and the aviation indutry cannot just cancel flights based on scuttlebutt.

They need to make the trips and, in the unlikely event a terrorist/hijacking scenario presents itself, deal with it directly, which, like it or not, is having an agent on the plane that can combat the nutjobs that wish to take the plane over and (possibly) transform it into a suicide mission. This is a problem that's not gonna go away and that makes just cancelling flights unrealistic for all involved.

 

[350DRIVER]

Hawker rider,

I am against terrorism in all forms but I surely will not be on Israel's side ... Am I for the suicide bombings.? No but I am not against them either since the Palestinian people have absolutely no way to get back at Israel for the daily killings of innocent women and children. If you believe other wise then you need to take a few history lessons and stop buying into the false propaganda. If Israel continues the killings then I would only hope that Palestine does retaliate. (which it will) You would have to be one fuc$ed up dude if you thought that the Palestinian people did not have a right to fight back against Israel after seeing family members being killed day after day.

Offcourse i am for peace in the middle east, but to backup the palestinians?? i don't think so. Arafat's hands are mighty dirty, it's very surprising that he didn't get taken out a while ago. might I remind you that he also has quite a bit of american blood on his hands, and still you back the palestinians ??

To back Israel up is just as ridiculous in my opinion. Sharon is just as bad as Arafat, probably worse. The crazed jew is a war criminal and if you do a little research you will see his track records sure backs this up. Sharon knows better than to take Arafat out since doing so he will even pi$$ more of the middle east off and in doing so all he!! would break loose over there. Sharon may be a jew but he is not a stupid one. I proudly say "yes" I would back and support them any day of the week over Israel.

As far as the GW argument goes, I think the facts speak for itself.

3 5 0

 

[Hawker rider]

sure ,I would like to get into a personal argument with you, but this is not the place or the time for that.

My best friend is married to a native Israeli girl, so I do know quite a bit about the history over there. I"ve always tried to stay objective about the issue though.

Offcourse you know, since you are a self proclaimed "expert" on the issue that since the last few ceased fires between the israeli's and the palestinians it was the palestinians that broke the cease-fire agreement with their suicide bombings. And that means to me that Israel retaliates agiainst the palestinians for attacking their civillians and not the other way around.

By the way do you have a problem with people that follow the jewish religion? You sure sound like anti-semite in your previous posts

 

[surplus1]

For the record, I am not myself opposed to the idea of air marshalls on board certain flights. I merely think that British airline pilots have the right to decide that for themselves, just as American airline pilots have the right to decide differently. I do not think that we should call them a$$holes because they have a different point of view on the issue of flight safety as it relates to weapons discharged on board aircraft in flight.

On the issue of El Al security: There is no doubt that Israeli airline security measures are better than those of anyone else. However, suggesting that they be implemented in the US is somewhat naive. El Al is Israel's only international airline and very small. They also have a limited number of airports and very few aircraft. The duplication of their airline security measures would bring the US airline industry to a screeching halt, with an economic impact that we cannot accept. Exactly what the terrorists would like to see happen. We must find a different way.

Israeli air marshalls have not lost any aircraft and I did not say they did. I said it was the policy of the Israeli government that it would rather lose the aircraft, with its passengers, than permit it to be hijacked. Where did I get that idea? Statements of the Israeli government made when hijacking was prevalent and the policy was instituted. They have killed a few hijackers in flight, as well as a few passengers. The hijackings stopped, thanks in part to the policy and in part to their preflight screening and security. Perhaps a good policy for them. A highly questionable policy for us.

Today's hihacker doesn't seek publicity, he's a suicide bomber. If he gets on the airplane with his tools he will not be afraid of an air marshall. His objective may well be to sacrifice himself in order to "get" the aircraft and kill its passengers. That he will die with it is already a foregone conclusion. Therefore, are air marshalls a deterrent or is their purpose also suicidal in order to prevent the use of the aircraft as a missile?

I don't find it healthy to compare the Israeli State nor its politics with the United States, no matter how "justified" their brand of terrorism may be to some. Terror breeds more terror whether or not you share the political views of the particular terrorist group.

After the tradegy of 9/11 our President told us that he would not, and that we should not, allow the terrorists to force us to change the American way of life. Unfortunately, he has allowed that to happen and many of the posts in this thread appear to indicate that we are more than willing to do the same. I do not share that point of view.

I'm all for defending "the American way". I'm just not willing to give it up, in order to claim that I'm protecting "national security". If national security cannot be achieved without the loss of traditional American rights and freedoms, then national security is of no value. What would we be securing, our own form of tyranny?

I would not want to be the US fighter pilot that has to carry out an order to shoot down a civil aircraft (one that he himself may have flown the week before and that today may be flown by one of his buddies - a very real possibility given that most of our US combat cover pilots are members of the National Guard whose regular job is that of airline pilot). Neither would I want to be the person that has to give that order. Would you?

Let's use the American ingenuity for which we have become famous, not pervert it by giving up our freedoms in the name of defending our freedoms. Let us not start wars in foreign nations that pose no immediate threat to the United States and that have not attacked us. Unless we are prepared to invade every nation run by a dictator, let us not invade or occupy other nations whose politics we may not like.

We were the leaders that created the concept of a world community and forum of United Nations that could jointly improve the planet on which we live. When we choose to ingnore that community of nations because it disagrees with the politics of a handful of American leaders, we do not help ourselves. We must practice what we preach, not take the stance of imperial overlords thanks only to the "super power" status of our armed forces. The purpose of the United States military is the defense of the United States, not the invasion and occupation of foreign nations.

In the face of immediate danger or in response to an attack yes, we must act (as we did in Afghanistan), and if necessary alone, to defend our country. We had the support of virtually ALL nations in doing that.

Invading and occupying another nation, killing hundreds of our own soldiers and thousands of their people, soldiers and innocents alike, destroying its infrastructure and expending hundreds of billions of the people's money because we "think" it may have or be developing WMD or because our leader doesn't "like" or approve of its leader is not a good idea. If we were to follow through on that concept, we would be at war with more than 1/2 of the people on this planet, which would be another bad idea.

Nation building requires the consensus of the world community. When that concensus cannot be achieved, we come off as bullies, not liberators nor defenders of freedom. We do not need "permission" to defend the USA, but we do need and should have the support of the world's leading nations before we engage in wars like this war in Iraq. We could have obtained that consensus, just as we did in Afghanistan, in the Balkans, or in the '91 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait. We did not get that support for this war simply because a handful of high officials in our country were too arrogant to seek it effectively.

The damage to our reputation as a nation will be long lasting. There was never a doubt that the United States could militarily defeat Iraq, we won the war. There is serious threat that we may lose the peace.

Yes, we have displaced the Iraqi dictator and he is our prisoner. We have replaced him with a more benevolent dictator named Uncle Sam. We don't need to give Uncle Sam WMD, as we did Saddam Hussein, he already has them.

While the instant gratification of military victory may satisfy the Rambo mentality, the long term well being of this Republic has been placed in question, the credibility of its leaders is doubted by a majority of the world and the foreign policy of our country is anybody's guess. Some may call that progress but I am not among them. We can do better by paying more attention to whom we choose as our leaders.

The real world in which we live, together with billions of people who are NOT Americans, is not a TV show to gain favorable Nielsen ratings from the naive for the incumbent. The dazzling photo ops of carrier landings are not the substance of world leadership. If the FOX network has become what we now define as journalism we're in dire straits. I wouldn't classify any of those theatrics as "conservatism". A comical but tragic pharse might be more fitting.

There is a reason why we are disliked by so many of the world's people. I think we would do better to find out why and correct it, than to brandish our own weapons of mass destruction, whether they take the form of shoot-to-kill air marshalls or bunker-bursting bombs dropped on some Middle Eastern populace.

JMO

 

[bart]

You all point to Israel as the model of how not to deal with terrorism.

I AGREE.

They have allowed an Egyptian to live and murder at will in their country far too long. They have bowed to outside pressure not to put this murderer on trial.

Someone like this in the States would have died an ugly death long ago, and with him his murdering ways. Israel's failure to act unilaterally has caused most of the terrorist killings they experience today.

AS A SIDEBAR:

I have yet to see another news source corroborate the NY Times story, which tells me the guy either quoted a janitor or just made up the story.

 

[Flywrite]

Surplus,

Your last post is probably the most intelligent and eloquent I've seen in a political thread on this board.

 

[OrcasC180]

Surplus1,

Very well put. I agree 100%.

 

[350DRIVER]

sure ,I would like to get into a personal argument with you, but this is not the place or the time for that.

Hawker rider, I do not look at this debate as a matter of personal argument between you or I as you have put it. I tend to look at it more in the way of it being a difference of opinion(s), nothing more and nothing less. I have met many from both sides but my opinion is based on history, personal preference, and what I think is right verses wrong. We could debate this issue untill he!! freezes over but for what reason?.

My best friend is married to a native Israeli girl, so I do know quite a bit about the history over there. I"ve always tried to stay objective about the issue though.

I have met many people over time from both sides as well but I will not be influenced by others through there personal & political beliefs. I am glad to hear that your friend is married to a native Israeli girl and I can only wish them the best of both worlds.

Offcourse you know, since you are a self proclaimed "expert" on the issue that since the last few ceased fires between the israeli's and the palestinians it was the palestinians that broke the cease-fire agreement with their suicide bombings. And that means to me that Israel retaliates agiainst the palestinians for attacking their civillians and not the other way around.

I do not recall ever stating that I am a "self proclaimed" expert on the issue, it is nothing more than looking at the situation and seeing the innocent lives that are being taken daily. You can make a claim about the Palestinians being the ones at fault but if you look hard the case can/does make it out to be the other way around. Israel has failed on many attempts per Sharon's needs/desires and until there is a change there the violence will not come to an end. I find it a tad ludicrous when you state the the people of Palestine have no right to blow themselves up but it is "ok" for Israel to use the F-16's, tanks, troops, etc, etc, to go into the settlements of Palestine and kill innocent people. Palestinian people will not just sit back and do nothing, one cannot fault them since they have absolutely no other way to retaliate.

By the way do you have a problem with people that follow the jewish religion? You sure sound like anti-semite in your previous posts

I don't have a problem with the people who follow the religion and those from the region, I do have a problem with the politics and leadership over there. I would never ever support the actions that are taking place present day over there within the Israeli gov't.

3 5 0

 

[surplus1]

I don't want to highjack this thread and turn it into a debate on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but some of the ideas you express challenge intellect.

They have allowed an Egyptian to live and murder at will in their country far too long. They have bowed to outside pressure not to put this murderer on trial.

It is true that Mr. Arafat was born in Egypt but to call him an Egyptian defies reason. The current Israeli prime minister was born in what we call Israel, but do not overlook the fact that a majority of Israeli leaders were born in places like Germany, Russia and a plethora of European countries. The place of their birth does not make them foreigners to Israel and the place of Arafat's birth does not make him Egyptian.

You simply cannot ignore the fact that the Zionist movement that ultimately established the Israeli State, began at a time when the Jewish population of Palestine was less than 10,000. Millions of Palestinians, native Palestinians, have been displaced by immigrant European Jews, there land confiscated, their homes destroyed, there children killed over a period of more than 50 years.

The truth is that the Israeli nation was not established by jewish people from Palestine. It was created by a consortium of Europeans who did not want the "jews" living in their respective countries. The displacement of the Palestinian peoples was the consequence. The tool was military power, provided and supported by "western" nations.

When the jewish population of Palestine was outnumbered more than 10-1 by "Palestinian arabs", the jews were living in peace. They were not being murdered by arabs, nor was their land being stolen or their homes destroyed. That isn't my opinion, it is history and can be studied and verified by anyone who chooses to give a dam*. The Balfour agreement is a European product and most of the people that supported Zionism were not Jews. They were people who didn't want jews around them and who "invented" a Jewish homeland by taking from others by force. Again, that is history, not my opinion.

I don't want to eliminate Israel and believe that it has a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians. Until the rights of the Palestinians are restored in a form acceptable to THEM, the conflict will continue.

They (the Palestinians) use what WE, the foreigners, define as terrorism because it is their only means of resistance. The Jews, befor they got their State (given to them by Europeans and the UN) used terrorism to remove the occupying British. How quickly we forget.

With all due respect, I think your view of the situation is a byproduct of your prejudices, coupled with a lack of information. I don't mean to offend you, but I have to ask ... how can you be so shallow?

 

[Swass]

350 sounds like an anti-semite, liberal, left winger to me (is that a contradiction?) Thank God you have zero chance of holding a position of power in our government. The administration will be the same for another 4 years, get used to it.

 

[bart]

It is true that Mr. Arafat was born in Egypt but to call him an Egyptian defies reason.

What type of reason does it defy? Please help us all understand your logic better. You obviously understand the motivations of killers much better than the rest of us, so please enlighten us.

Kill Arafat and those that come to stand in his stead, and half the problem is solved, secondly, you pressure Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to assimilate the so-called Palestinian refugees living in their country. Those two things, and in 5 to 10 years, no more problem.

Let me ask you this too. Since you are so knowledgeable on the situation in the Middle East, when was the last time the Palestinian government ruled Palestine?

I await your answer eagerly...

 

[350DRIVER]

Kill Arafat and those that come to stand in his stead, and half the problem is solved, secondly, you pressure Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to assimilate the so-called Palestinian refugees living in their country. Those two things, and in 5 to 10 years, no more problem.

I love it, a typical response from someone with the cowboy mentality and who is quite biased and twisted with personal opinion/belief. What is even more comical is that you allow your feelings to overshadow the reality of the conflict and situation that has been taking place for many years. Even though Sharon is a jew he surely is not that dumb since he knows not to touch/harm Arafat. Most people understand that if he is killed a martyr would be created and Israel would probably go up in smoke. There are many reasons why most countries in the Middle East are pro-Palestine, Israel has very few friends/supporters and rightfully so.

What I even love more is that the support for Palestine will only grow stronger and that surely must pi$$ you off beyond belief because there is not a single thing that you can do about it other than moan, pout about it, and inject ridiculous opinions into the matter.

3 5 0

>>swassy, keep drinking that kool aid with chas- such big words from such a small guy....

 

[surplus1]

What type of reason does it defy? Please help us all understand your logic better.

I will try. You said that Arafat was an Egyptian because he was born in Egypt. I said that defies reason. Here is my logic.

Since the country of Israel was establish by the UN partition of 1947 and declared its "Independence" in 1948, the Israeli Government has had 15 Prime Ministers. Since some of the individuals have served more than once, there have been 12 persons who served in that capacity.

Five (4) of the twelve (12) were "born" in the region. They are: Yitzahk Rabin - Jerusalem, Yigal Allon - Kfar Tavor (Palestine). Ehud Barak - Kibbutz Mishmar Hasharon (Palestine), Ariel Sharon - Kfar Malal (Palestine). Only one (1) - Benjamin Netanyahu - Telaviv, was "born" in the State of Israel.

Of the other seven (7), four (4) were born in Poland - David Ben-GUrion, Yitzahk Shamir, Menachem Begin and Shimon Peres. One (1) was born in Russia - Golda Meir. Two (2) were born in the Ukraine - Moshe Sharett and Levi Eshkol.

I respectfully submit it would "defy reason" to call David Ben-Gurion a Pole, Golda Meir a Russian or Areil Sharon a Palestinian. It therefore "defies reason" to call Yassar Arafat an Egyptian.

Hopefully you now understand my logic.

Let me ask you this too. Since you are so knowledgeable on the situation in the Middle East, when was the last time the Palestinian government ruled Palestine?

I await your answer eagerly... [/B][/QUOTE]

I think we both know that Palestine is an occupied territory not a nation State. The question is therefore ludicrous.

 

[bart]

350:

Just who would send Israel up in smoke? Name the country or group of countries...

Surplus:

Read your history, palestine is a regional name like west coast. It has never existed as a country, period. It has never been ruled by a government that allowed its residents any say over their fate. It has been ruled by various countries over the last 2,000 years. The Israelis have as much claim to rule it as anyone else, seeing as they were the principal occupants until the Arab invasion and occupation in and around 650 AD.

Treating Arafat and his minions like anything other than thugs is what is ludicrous. The neighbors of Israel have kept this struggle alive Orwellian style for years to distract their people from the generally piss-poor job they are doing of running their own countries. That is why there have been "palestinian" refugee camps in operation in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt since 1948. The Arabs refuse to assimilate these people or offer them anything other than DP status to keep this whole distraction alive.

The political history of this area makes a particularly interesting study for those willing to research beyond the evening news and USA Today. I would recommend that you read "A Short History of the Arab Peoples" by Sir John Glubb for an overview of the history of the region. If you want an in-depth history, I can recommend several other books.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus:

Read your history, palestine is a regional name like west coast. It has never existed as a country, period. It has never been ruled by a government that allowed its residents any say over their fate. It has been ruled by various countries over the last 2,000 years. The Israelis have as much claim to rule it as anyone else, seeing as they were the principal occupants until the Arab invasion and occupation in and around 650 AD.

Bart,

Thanks for your very civil reply. It makes it much easier to discuss controversial issues when messeages are not loaded with personal vitriol. We differ on some issues and agree on others. Reading your perspective helps to "educate" me and I do not resent difference of opinion. I can only hope your attitude is similar.

Your recommendation that I read history is a valid one. I try to do that and trust that you do the same. In your study, I would recommend further that you give consideration to the perspective of the writer. History texts record very different accounts of events depending on where they are written and who does the writing. Do keep that in mind as you read and study.

Somewhere I came across a quotation whose author I can't recall, but I do remember what was said. It goes like this:

"History - An account, mostly false, of events, unimportant, brought about by soldiers, mostly fools, and rulers, mostly knaves." While there may have been a better choice with respect to the term "unimportant", the quote embodies most of the reality of History. Think about that.

I take issue with one thought you advance above, this one - "The Israelis have as much claim to rule it as anyone else, seeing as they were the principal occupants until the Arab invasion and occupation in and around 650 AD."

If we are to assess the claims of Israelis on that basis, how would you assess the claims of American Indians? Seeing as they were the principal occupants of the North American Continent for centuries before the first "white man" ever set foot on it, would you be willing to say they have "as much claim" and as a consequence justify their "right" to displace the current occupants? I think the practical application of that thought process would not sit well with many Americans, Canadians or Mexicans. That is why the Palestinians do not embrace the claims of the Israelis to territory that they once held, more than 2000 years ago.

Treating Arafat and his minions like anything other than thugs is what is ludicrous. The neighbors of Israel have kept this struggle alive Orwellian style for years to distract their people from the generally piss-poor job they are doing of running their own countries. That is why there have been "palestinian" refugee camps in operation in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt since 1948. The Arabs refuse to assimilate these people or offer them anything other than DP status to keep this whole distraction alive.

I don't attempt to justify the behavior of Arafat, but neither can I justify the behavior of many Israeli leaders and their "minions". I also cannot "justify" the British and French "occupations" of the Middle East nor the assorted "nations" they created in their own interest. Likewise, I cannot justify the current occupation of Iraq by the United States and its so-called coalition.

That does not mean that I support Saddam Hussien's oppression of the Iraqi peoples. There is no question that he was and is a despot. However, I also cannot overlook the fact that he recieved support, technology and materials for the manufacture of WMD, etc., from the United States and other European nations. We turned our heads the other way, when it suited our purpose to have him wage war on Iran. We turned our heads again when he murdered the Shiites and the Kurds, after WE encouraged them to revolt ... and then abandoned them. Somewhat similar to the way we "turned our heads" (initially) when it became known what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.

I have never viewed the Ayotollah Kohmeni as a "great religious leader". I see him as just another despot, who used his religion as a means to achieve political ambitions. At the same time, one of our "dearest friends" was the Shah of Iran whose opression of Iranians was no less than that of the Ayatollah.

On the basis of all that "history", I find it somewhat difficult to embrace the "pot calling the kettle black" and subsequently support a modern-day "Crusade" (a term used by our current President ... until he was quieted by his more politically correct advisers).

History is unpleasant more often than not and there are few who rise above the subjectivity of adjusting it as necessary to obscure the realities of their activities. I would hope that one day my country would rise above that. That day has not yet come and I doubt that it will in my lifetime. That we are not "alone" in our bad behavior does not satisfy me.

The political history of this area makes a particularly interesting study for those willing to research beyond the evening news and USA Today. I would recommend that you read "A Short History of the Arab Peoples" by Sir John Glubb for an overview of the history of the region. If you want an in-depth history, I can recommend several other books.

Thank you for the recommendation. It's a good book no doubt. So is the Torah/Tanakh, the Bible and the Holy Qur'an/Koran. Like all other books, the extent to which these writings are infallible, truthful or fiction is, in the final analysis, a matter of opinion.

History my friend is not Science. By all means we should read everything that we can. We should however, not believe everything we read. [That applies to this post as well.]

Thanks for your comments.

 

[DoinTime]

Surplus,

Your postings give my dictionary a workout. Thanks for putting some civility into a topic that is generally characterized by extremists.

 

[surplus1]

DoinTime,

Thank you for noticeing. I have enjoyed the dialogue even though the "thread creep" has developed into a marathon run.


Edited to correct spelling error. "threat" canged to "thread".

 

[bart]

One last note: On the qoran or koran, whatever your preferred spelling. It is interesting to note that all of Maohammed's teachings fell right into line with the teachings of Christianity (turning the other cheek, tolerance, love of neighbor) until Mohammed was run out of Mecca by the merchant's. It was then that he began teaching of jihad, and allied with the Jews, took Mecca by force and murdered the merchants that had run him out.

Guess God changed his messages to Mohammed when things didn't go his way.