They made cuts in my penis- There was blood all over”

That completely backs up what I have been saying in this thread. Thanks for you help, cabbage.

You guys can try to twist the truth all you want in your silly little exercise to "prove" that I'm racist by telling me what I meant with my own words. I'll just sit back and laugh at your folly. Not surprised at the participants in this little exercice. They're all people I've shamed before at their own game. Keep trying, kids.

 

Actually I remembered fairly well. After going through the search function I found out that my memory was correct.

You threatened violence if you saw a group of arabs congregating around the bathrooms.

I have almost never been on a flight where I haven't seen a group of people in line at the rest rooms. In addition the flight crew themselves announce when the seatbelt sign goes off that passengers are free to move about the cabin.

You can try and pretend that you didn't say anything racist. Your racism may have been brought on by an irrational fear based on good intentions, but what you said is plainly racist. It is there for all to see.

 

There should be a link in there. Here is another link that shows people against torture even if the terrorist knows information about future terrorist attacks within the U.S.

http://shininglight.us/mt/archives/2005/01/us_citizens_att.html

In addition here is an old post I made about the nuke in Times Square scenario based on a research piece that also talks about it.

 

I have been on over 20 planes this year including 4 flights overseas. On every single one they made an announcement as to not to "congregate". This includes both domestic and international flights (Qantas, KAL, NWA). bigtexx simply used the wrong agency (FAA) that prescribed this action. It was the TSA.

Here is a bit of an article from a travel agency web site:

"TSA discourages restroom lines on planes
Airlines have been asked by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to tell passengers they are not to congregate in groups in any areas of the aircraft, especially near lavatories, because of security concerns. “It formalizes the idea that we don’t want people congregating in the airplane,” said TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser. The Australian airline Qantas said its pilots are making pre-flight announcements about gathering near restrooms and cabin crew are monitoring passengers during the flight.
Sources: CNN, Northstar Travel Media "

Link: http://www.carlsonwagonlit.com/en/countries/ca/newsreleases/traveller/article_0015.html

Here is an article from the BBC concerning the same thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3376459.stm

And one from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/01/08/airline.security.ap/

 

Thanks for the info, I certainly didn't know or pay attention to this new 'rule'. To make myself clear, I am not picking on bigtexxx for his misquoting FAA.

However, the fact remains that most passengers ignore the announcement and keep gathering at airplane's lavatory to answer nature's call. Bigtexxx apparently has no problem with that - he certainly didn't act to stop them. Indeed, we have not read in any news that a big Texas guy beat up a bunch of passengers on airplane because they were congregating near the plane's bathroom while avoiding direct eye contract with our Texas vigilante. The problem is, one of them could be a caucasian looking, Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles.

 

As stated in my post, this was on Qantas, Korean Air Lines and Northwest.

 

No one is telling you what you meant, and you are the only one keeps telling others that you didn't mean what you said. Everyone interpreted your comments differently than you claimed. Of course, there is a remote possibility that everyone here has problem in reading comprehension.

BTW, you are the only person I've ever met in real life or cyber space, who claims to be "a bigger man", or "how small of you", or "this or that person is not allowed to talk about certain matters", almost every single day on a message board. You are very special. I guess you have to keep reminding yourself that, to boost your self-confidence.

 

I truly believe is that Al-Queda and the like understand US and are learning to 'play to the crowds' in the media. That means lying about torture, inflating death numbers, and overall painting the US in a bad light.

Ironically these people are the ones who tried to get a nuclear dirty bomb into the US and have tried and reviewed many techniques to kill as many men, women and children as possible.

To some extent, they think we are weak. They feel that our public and our country has no resolve. They reflect us in Somalia when we ran out with our tail between our legs.

I don't agree with this kind of torture, but if there was overwhelming evidence that he was a terrorist and was involved in or planning attacks on our people, then he deserves worse.

 

My gawd you're dense. In the article in the thread, there was a group of Arabs congregating in front of the bathroom. That is why I brought up the fact that they were Arab, because I was describing the situation in the thread. I HAVE TOLD YOU THAT REPEATEDLY. Get that through your skull, brah. Congregating in front of the front bathroom is not permissable due to FAA regulations. You cannot dispute that fact. You simply try to select what your pea-brain reads in my emails and try to belittle me based on selected quotes which are out of context. You are sad and I feel sorry for you.

 

You were not describing what happened in the article. You were saying that you fly a lot, and what you would do on a flight that you were on. It is linked in the posts above.

I am only calling out what you yourself said. We've talked about it before, the evidence is there for anyone and everyone to look at, and make up their own mind. You trying to change the story to make so that you were merely talking about what was in the article doesn't help your defense.

In your post you specifically mentioned how much you fly and what would happen on a flight that you were on. There isn't any point in discussing this with you, since you are trying to change your story now after the fact, and the links are there for anyone who wants to read it and judge for themselves.

 

Is it possible to believe in racial profiling without being a racist? I don't know.

What I do know is that you were not just talking about extra security measures. You were talking about a "beat down," an angry act of personal violence against people who have yet to commit a crime.

I would understand if you had said that you would try to confront them, ask them to return to their seats, get the air marshall's attention, or even try to disarm them if they ignored your requests.

But no. Your immediate reaction is a "beat down." That is an angry and hostile choice of words, bigtexx. That kind of language betrays, at best, an immature ego looking for attention. At worst, those words do sound like the language of bigotry.

However, I will assume you are innocent of being a racist since "innocent until proven guilty" is the way we do things around here. A concept that you benefit from everyday but is unwilling to extend to others.

 

great post.

 

If there are people on a plane that I suspect are terrorists about to do something, I sure as hell will step in. If that means hurting someone's feelings or stereotyping someone that is fine. BTW, I'm from Pakistan, and I believe I understand the insanity that drives these people and know how dangerous it is.

And If I was on a plane and we stopped a few terrorists trying to take over the plane, I would rally everyone to beat them to death on the plane.

The enemy thinks we are weak and can be swayed, we must show them that we have the resolve to follow through.

Of course I think its muslims and the Islamic people themselves (1.2 billion people) that need to step up and put a stop to this fringe, lunatic group that is corrupting the name of the religion for their own glory and puritanistic, view of the religion.

 

I'm not saying that scenario is right around the corner. I am merely using it to show that there is not necessarily an absolute as far as torture is concerned. FB says its not valid because it assumes and exact situation but that is just a smokescreen to prevent the realization that whether or not we condone torture IS a matter of degree.

Works both ways doesn't it? Are these also 'just allegations' from one person? If you assume it has happened because others have been tortured, why not assume it didn't because al queda does teach to claim torture?

Sure, and if you were a woman you might already have had your genitalia cut up.

http://shininglight.us/mt/archives/2005/01/us_citizens_att.html

Where to start with this one, lol. Not the same scenario at all. Does it suprise you that shininglight has determined this (think there a little bias? why not put a poll up from anti-war.com?).

It makes the same lame arguments you do. In general, a hypothetic WILL have assumptions, lol. None of that changes the general consensus, which is that in an extreme situation like the hypothetical, there is plenty of support to give it to the terrorist. Hypotheticals occur in ethics class and not in the real world? Well, yes - they are hypotheticals, lol. But if ethics are only for the classroom - then what's the problem with torture

 

I would hope that many people would step up and confront the terrorists on a plane if there were terrorists there.

I certainly would like to think I would be among the first to take on any terrorists trying to commit terror on a plane. I would do so if the terrorists were middle eastern or British like the shoe bomber. It has zero to do with hurting anyone's feelings or racial profiling.

What happened in the article however involved a group of musicians. They were not terrorists. According bigtexx's bragadacio he would have initiated violence a group people who were not terrorists and were not a threat to anyone. That in turn would have caused a scuffle which would have put the plane and more passengers at risk than a group of wedding musicians ever could have.

A fear of Arabs and willingness to act because they are Arab is a danger. A willingness to act against terrorists regardless of their ethnicity is to be commended.

 

In other words, if you "suspect" someone, you can simply beat him/her down. By siting that you are Pakistan, it just justifies your action? Let's say someone else, not you, has beef with some other people, he can just "suspect" them and beat down them without consequences, right? Let's take a step further, people can just beat anyone down, for the sake of his mood, he can certainly claim that he "suspected". If gathering in front of a washroom is suspicious, of course any tourists taking pictures of any building will be in that category; anyone with a cell phone or any electronic device or a full bag on the street or anywhere with people around is suspicious as well. So we ended up with everyone beating down everyone everywhere. Do you really think that makes you safer? Besides, you said you wouldn't mind "hurting someone's feelings or stereotyping someone", I guess you will be fine being suspected and beat down by someone else.

On top of that, the reason behind all this, was just that you don't want others to think you are weak? Well, that's pretty weak to me.

 

That poll from Shining light was from USA Today I believe. It wasn't conducted by them, but mereley posted by them. If that one isn't the USA today poll there was one by them that had the same results.

Here is the USA TODAY poll:


C. Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.*
*************** Willing Not willing No opinion
2005 Jan 7-9 39 59 2
2001 Oct 5-6 45 53
THat is 59% against torturing terrorists even if they know details about future attacks.
I also included a link to a poll from ABC which also had the same findings. All of them said that the majority of people were against torture even if it would save lives.

As for the times square scenario it is virtually impossible that it could happen in such a way. There is almost no way that only one person knows how to stop it, would give up the correct information under torture, etc. Some hypotheticals are within the realm of possibility. (What would you do if a car bomber drove through the front of a local shopping mall? etc.) Others have so many variables that the chance of all of them lining up just a certain way are next to impossible.

 

I stated VERY specifically that if I suspected them, I would confront them (not physically, but to see what they are up to). If I determined that they were attempting to take over the plane, then hell yeah I would rally everyone to take them down. I don't care if they are american, arab, isreali or from anywhere. Though I would be weary of any groups acting suspiciously, a strong majority have been middle eastern looking men 20-30 years old. BTW, I am in that category, and I realize that and am not be overly sensitive if I recieve a second look from security. This country has allowed opportunities unimaginable to me or my family, and these people are attacking that way of life and would destroy my country if they could. I will sacrifice a little of my pride as we attempt to destroy those would attack us.

 

I might have misunderstood you. I believe nobody would have problem to encourage responsible citizens to confront terrorists. People were talking about torture to suspects, and texxx's previous post about "beating down" those "Arabs gathering in front of the washroom" was brought up. Then you talked about stepping in, when you "suspect" someone. I thought you were talking about the same thing as he did. If I misunderstood, my bad. But I do disagree with you about profiling. In my view, profiling on one hand suspecting lots of people injustified, on the other hand giving free pass to lots of real bad people. It doesn't help with security but on the countrary turning more people against you.

Then again, the key word is "suspect". Law enforcement is tough, it cannot be relied on single citizen's judgement. A free and democratic America was built by generations of people, won by hundreds of thousands of lives. Hopefully, people don't just give it up for one bombing. If that's the real case, who would be actually winning, if they hate your freedom that much?