Air Travel Paranoia

[Claudias]

Attacking the person(s) who are suffering the paranoia, or to play the "victim" is simply dealing with the monkey, if you want to make a change you have to deal with the organ grinder, the people who's actions generated the fear that led to people becoming paranoid.

 

People like Blair and Dubya are the ones generating the fear,the organ grinders. How do we deal with them? The ballot box is not the answer.

[JAStewart]

Attacking the person(s) who are suffering the paranoia, or to play the "victim" is simply dealing with the monkey, if you want to make a change you have to deal with the organ grinder, the people who's actions generated the fear that led to people becoming paranoid.

 

People like Blair and Dubya are the ones generating the fear,the organ grinders. How do we deal with them? The ballot box is not the answer.

 

Revolution.

 

There isn't a choice in the UK. There isn't a choice in the US. Two party system.

 

Current terror threats are just to spook us and make it shut our mouth while the upper 1% screws us over. I honestly believe that the threats were a 'reply' to the growing questioning of 9/11, especially since two of the chairmen on the Commision have admitted a whitewash.

[Ghostrider]

Attacking the person(s) who are suffering the paranoia, or to play the "victim" is simply dealing with the monkey, if you want to make a change you have to deal with the organ grinder, the people who's actions generated the fear that led to people becoming paranoid.

 

People like Blair and Dubya are the ones generating the fear,the organ grinders. How do we deal with them? The ballot box is not the answer.

 

They're monkeys in their own way too, if you see them as generating fear. I would have thought destroying and attempting to destroy planes, trains, buildings and everyone within them on multiple occasions over several years was quite plenty to generate fear in most people.

 

Those who plan and commit the acts of destruction are the organ grinders, politicians, if you listen to them, and if you heed what they say, are merely messengers. Whether you see them are adding to the pre-existing fear caused by the acts of destruction is, I think, a matter of personal opinion as to how you take their statements. Without the initial acts of destruction the politicians could have said what they liked, but it would have lacked credibility, it would have been assumption and conjecture at best, and would have been unlikely to have been taken seriously by most people.

[Claudias]

Attacking the person(s) who are suffering the paranoia, or to play the "victim" is simply dealing with the monkey, if you want to make a change you have to deal with the organ grinder, the people who's actions generated the fear that led to people becoming paranoid.

 

People like Blair and Dubya are the ones generating the fear,the organ grinders. How do we deal with them? The ballot box is not the answer.

 

They're monkeys in their own way too, if you see them as generating fear. I would have thought destroying and attempting to destroy planes, trains, buildings and everyone within them on multiple occasions over several years was quite plenty to generate fear in most people.

 

Once again. Blair and Dubya are the ones who have been destroying planes, trains, buildings and everyone in them on multiple occasions, in multiple countries, over several years. To say that they are monkies,not organ grinders, is a base slur on our simian friends.[/u]

[JustMe]

JAStewart wrote

Revolution.

 

There isn't a choice in the UK. There isn't a choice in the US. Two party system.

 

Thats defeatist talk.........ever heard of the Energizer party?. No.......because you have yet to start it. The SSP, Respect and various other parties that have sprung up over the years prove that there is a choice. Lib Dems taking seats from other parties at bye elections and then holding them at general elections proves that voters will change once a bye election proves that it is possible to defeat the incumbent party.

 

And guess what?.......I am going to make a prediction. Before long we will see an Islamic party getting elected in parts of the UK.......perhaps a Hindi party as well.........followed by a WASPS party.......White Anglo Saxon ProteStants.

[JustMe]

Sorry to our long suffering moderators.......I went off topic by responding to an off topic posting.

 

Back to air paranoia! Perhaps claiming that an attack was imminent diverted attention from other things but how many of us really believe that our government invented the whole thing for whatever reason might have suited them?. After all they could have "discovered" new evidence about the Swissair crash off Canada or Concorde in Paris.

 

Moving sideways a bit, and nothing to do with terrorists and perhaps a lot to do with paranoia, ever since the crash of a Varsity onto a house in Gloucester in about 1962 I have often laid in my bed in the small hours listening to a flight overhead and being glad when the noise fades into the distance.

[Ghostrider]

Attacking the person(s) who are suffering the paranoia, or to play the "victim" is simply dealing with the monkey, if you want to make a change you have to deal with the organ grinder, the people who's actions generated the fear that led to people becoming paranoid.

 

People like Blair and Dubya are the ones generating the fear,the organ grinders. How do we deal with them? The ballot box is not the answer.

 

They're monkeys in their own way too, if you see them as generating fear. I would have thought destroying and attempting to destroy planes, trains, buildings and everyone within them on multiple occasions over several years was quite plenty to generate fear in most people.

 

Once again. Blair and Dubya are the ones who have been destroying planes, trains, buildings and everyone in them on multiple occasions, in multiple countries, over several years. To say that they are monkies,not organ grinders, is a base slur on our simian friends.[/u]

 

Seems we're chewing on chalk and cheese here again.

 

What Bush, Blair and their wider coalition partners have done has been done in their respective roles as national leaders, they were/are representing a nation and it's population which they were entirely entitled to do in the position they held/hold. They had/have the mandate of the majority of the population of their respective nations, who cared to make their opinions known when asked, to act as they saw fit in the best interests of their nation and it's population. Whether you like what they have done/are doing, whether you support what they have done/are doing, or not, doesn't matter, they acted within the powers bestowed upon them by the portion of the electorate who supported them at the ballot box. Such is democracy in action.

 

They declared well before the fact what military action aka. war, they intended to take, and where. They declared war, on specific nations and their populations, this is how things are done when nations engage in war.

 

On the flip side, who do the current crop of Muslim/Asian terrorists represent? Who's mandate do they have to operate as they do? Who is their leader, are they even all of one entity? What declaration of war did they make, and when? Seems best as I recall the best we've had from them are a few ambigious statements, mostly after the fact, made by some character who is "probably" hiding in some foxhole somewhere in the near east, but who may or may not actually be alive any longer. The foot soldiers going round causing the trouble have only tentative connections to this supposed "leader", if any. No nation or geographic population openly admits to supporting them. We have been told repeatedly, including on this thread, that they do not represent/have the support of Muslims or Asians in general. So who's left to support them and/or empower them?

 

How can you give these people any credibility? Seems to me as it stands they're plain and simple, individuals and small faction(s) of troublemakers intent on causing destruction and mayhem for their own personal or individual group's agendas. With neither national or people support and empowerment they have no power unless that which is self appointed, nor do they have any mandate to "fight" for whatever it is they're fighting for, or fight with their chosen strategy, unless that which is also self appointed.

 

They're renegades, mavericks, outlaws, and as such their actions cannot be compared like for like with those of national leaders who attained their positions and power according to the procedures in place in their respective nations.

[Claudias]

Ghostrider. Do you have an imagination?

[Ghostrider]

Ghostrider. Do you have an imagination?

 

 

....and whether I do, or I don't, would have what relevance to what, exactly?

[Claudias]

I would like you to imagine that,150 years ago, your great grandfather and his three sons emigrated to Africa. Time went by and you were born,,3rd generation African.

Imagine now that Africa suddenly decided that it did not like the regime in Britian. Declared war and began to destroy the country,locked up the Royal Family.dissolved parliament and began rooting out Labour supporters.

One of your relations,a taxi driver in Coventry,is locked up as a suspected terrorist in one of the concentration camps. The guards found that,when they struck him on the legs he declared "Jesus.Jesus". They found this so amusing that,over the next few weeks they beat him to death.

Meanwhile. Back in Africa. The government declare that all exBritish and their descendants are potential terrorists. The armed forces kick down your door in the middle of the night,take you and your computers into custody and hold you in a secret location for years.

Now. Would you seriously expect your parents and grandparents to go around forbidding the youngsters to take up arms when the feel that the whole of Africa is against them.

 

That was maybe a complete waste of time but,it explains why I feel that you are being unreasonable when you say that, what you call 'Muslims/Asians' are not wholeheartedly trying to curb their militant kin.

[Ghostrider]

I would like you to imagine that,150 years ago, your great grandfather and his three sons emigrated to Africa. Time went by and you were born,,3rd generation African.

Imagine now that Africa suddenly decided that it did not like the regime in Britian. Declared war and began to destroy the country,locked up the Royal Family.dissolved parliament and began rooting out Labour supporters.

One of your relations,a taxi driver in Coventry,is locked up as a suspected terrorist in one of the concentration camps. The guards found that,when they struck him on the legs he declared "Jesus.Jesus". They found this so amusing that,over the next few weeks they beat him to death.

Meanwhile. Back in Africa. The government declare that all exBritish and their descendants are potential terrorists. The armed forces kick down your door in the middle of the night,take you and your computers into custody and hold you in a secret location for years.

Now. Would you seriously expect your parents and grandparents to go around forbidding the youngsters to take up arms when the feel that the whole of Africa is against them.

 

That was maybe a complete waste of time but,it explains why I feel that you are being unreasonable when you say that, what you call 'Muslims/Asians' are not wholeheartedly trying to curb their militant kin.

 

That's all fine and well, but no-one "....suddenly decided that it did not like the regime...." anyplace, the only wars which have been declared in Muslim/Asian nations in the last few years by the west, have been against ones which at best had been a source of concern, problems and deep unease for the west for a number of years, right up to those in which the regime was "on probation" for previous international infractions in to which the west would inevitably have been drawn anyway, but in which they were requested to assist.

 

As far as I am aware the government of the UK, or of any other western nation have not declared all Muslims/Asians and their descendants potential terrorists, the populations of western nations are doing that on their own with no governmental assistance, simply as a result of the sheer volume of Muslim/Asian terorists who are coming out of the woodwork at present, which is very understandably creating and fuelling paranoia in the public at large of the sort this thread was started over.

 

In this grossly excessive PC time of life there is a deep reluctance to identify individuals as originating from a particular nation, which makes it difficult to obtain information on the subject, however from what little is out there is seems most of the current crop of terrorists have their origins in nations such a Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and such. What's their beef? The west has not declared war on any of those nations, where are all the Iraqi and Afghan terrorists? they seem in very very short supply. I could understand your argument if the majority were of Iraqi and/or Afghan origins, but they're not, what does it have to do with the peoples who's roots are in Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt? those nations at least tend to side more with the west than against it.

 

Likewise, Germany now, and Bali a few years ago, neither is actively involved in the war, how come they're targets? How do you excuse 9/11, the African Embassies? No one had occupied any Muslim/Asian nation at that time, no country was being "destroyed".

 

You must realise that your statement "....why I feel that you are being unreasonable when you say that, what you call 'Muslims/Asians' are not wholeheartedly trying to curb their militant kin." is tantamount to accepting, if not encouraging anarchy. What you're saying, in other words, is that being actively involved in planning and/or executing acts of violence, destruction and mass murder/injury, is okay, and something that it's acceptable to turn a blind eye to, *if* in your opinion the "cause" in question is good enough.

 

Once you open that door, where do you draw the line? If it's okay for Muslims/Asians in general to ignore, which in turn is constructive aiding and abetting, and in fact making themselves complicit to the eventual acts. Why is there such an outcry, protestation and condemnation of such things as vandalism, obnoxious "neddish" behaviour, violence etc etc, both nationally and locally, right down to several threads on this board? People committing those, one would assume at least, have some greivance against something/someone, and are behaving as they do, to either "fight" whatever they feel is wrong, or vent their frustrations of what they feel is wrong in some tangible way. Different motivations, different acts for sure, but the principle remians exactly the same. Are you advocating anyone in the UK with a greivance who commits an act of destruction and violence because of it should be excused? Personally I think HM Inspector of Taxes insists on taking from me a far greater percentage of my income than is right or fair, causing me to be deprived of many life choices and possessions. Would you consider it okay if I created an explosion on a council ferry which sank her taking all on board with her, to "highlight" or "fight" my greivance? Would you report me if you had any knowledge of my plans before the fact? Would you publically condemn as loudly as possible anyone else who said I was a hero for doing it and suggested they, or someone else should join in and do similiar things? I'm sure many others would condemn you if you didn't act and/or speak out.

 

Different place, different "cause", but exactly the same principle. Why is it okay for the UK Muslim/Asian community to act in such a way as would not be acceptable of the UK public in general? Why should we accept positive discrimination on this issue, I'm not expecting anything from the Muslim/Asian community I wouldn't expect from the UK public in general.

[Claudias]

I knew that I was wasting my time.

[Ghostrider]

I knew that I was wasting my time.

 

Touché!

[Claudias]

Just one final comment.

You accuse me of being an anarchist and supporter of terrorism because I say that I can see "where the Muslims are coming from".

Let me retaliate by saying that your blind belief that Tony and Dubya both have mandates for the powers which they have assumed leads me to believe that you condone all the attrocities carried out by British and American troops and agents in Afghanistan and Iraq in their names.

Further. You approve of the obscene practice of coating all the munitions used in these conflicts in depleted uranium. This practice not only destroys the installations on which the munitions are used but contaminates them with radiation for a century or more. Millions more civilians will die when the battles are long over.

I whole-heartedly believe that ALL people who find these practices commendable should develop incurable rot of the reproduction organs and thus,eventually,die out.

[Ghostrider]

Just one final comment.

You accuse me of being an anarchist and supporter of terrorism because I say that I can see "where the Muslims are coming from".

 

Read my statement again please. I said, your attitude of accepting that the vast majority of UK Muslims/Asians were right in not loudly condeming and actively flushing the radical few from their midst, effecively ment you accepted the extremely difficult and ineffective current system of locating and influencing the radical few who perpetrate anarachist terrorist actions. This when there are people far better placed, in fact in prime position, to identify and influence these radical few, if they chose to, yet you say it's okay that they make no special effort to help. When you have a tool to hand to make the job easier, yet you won't advocate it's use, the only conclusion a reader can come to, is that you don't want the job done any more effectively or faster than at present. When things could be done better, more effectively, yet they are not, it plain and simple is saying the the present is just fine as it is. In this case, that means your stance can only make the anarchistic terrorist views and actions appear more acceptable, which in turn can only lend itself to encouraging more individulas to decide it's worth giving it a go.

 

I did not say you were an anarchist and openly supporting terrorism, I said your stance actively allows the current anarchistic and terrorist acts exist and occur far more easily than they really need. You are sitting back and accepting the status quo, allowing these things to go on. You are condoning it by default of doing nothing, by refusing to state and/or encourage others who could and should be doing more, to do it. Condoning is the prime condition to allow flourishing.

 

 

Let me retaliate by saying that your blind belief that Tony and Dubya both have mandates for the powers which they have assumed leads me to believe that you condone all the attrocities carried out by British and American troops and agents in Afghanistan and Iraq in their names.

Further. You approve of the obscene practice of coating all the munitions used in these conflicts in depleted uranium. This practice not only destroys the installations on which the munitions are used but contaminates them with radiation for a century or more. Millions more civilians will die when the battles are long over.

I whole-heartedly believe that ALL people who find these practices commendable should develop incurable rot of the reproduction organs and thus,eventually,die out.

 

At this point of the debate discussing the fighting methods employed by either side is running before you can walk. Bush and Blair and their partners, all as national leaders were perfectly entitled to declare war between their respective nations and others. As I said before, this is how nations handle armed conflicts, one gives another notice that unless the other toes the line, they're coming in, which is exactly what happened. What's not to have a mandate about that?

 

If Bush, Blair et al are acting so beyond their remits and powers, where is the international condemnation, where is the international actions to oust them from power? And don't give me the tired lines about the U.S. being too big and powerful to take on, or that the U.S. has the rest of the world in it's pocket, as neither will wash.