Britain Figures It Out

[jrkarp]

I don't see how anyone has the right to use anyone else's property without their permission and against their wishes, be it their home, their restaurant, their corporation. That the owner does or does not have what most people would consider a good reason for denying use to me is irrelevant, they still have the right to deny use. It's basic to property rights, the right to exclude people for good or ill.

Well, without going into depth about whether or not freedom from discrimination by private parties is a right, I suppose the counterargument to your point is that by opening an establishment to the public, a restaurant owner (for example), has waived his right to deny access to someone based on their race or gender. Note, however, that the owner of a private establishment has not waived that right. Quite simply, if someone wants to avail himself of the benefits of being open to the public (more foot traffic, more customers, more income), he must accept the limitation that the governement has put upon him.

 

[CDB]

Well, without going into depth about whether or not freedom from discrimination by private parties is a right, I suppose the counterargument to your point is that by opening an establishment to the public, a restaurant owner (for example), has waived his right to deny access to someone based on their race or gender.

That's just it though and why this counter argument fails is because this is not something you can derrive from self ownership as all traditional rights can be. It's an artificial imposition of aesthetic taste on someone's rights based on how people think they should act. The distinction between being 'open to the public' and being a private club, or even a private residence, is totally artifical. Private property is private property. If someone could argue the above position out for me logically I'd be more agreeable to it, I've just never seen it done. It always comes down to X thinks it's wrong for Y not to serve Z, therefore Y must serve Z because X decides it's Z's right. When in fact if it is Z's right then it should be possible to show from a base of self ownership how he becomes entitled to use someone else's property.

Of course, people in today's society don't cotton to the idea of something not belonging to them, even when it clearly doesn't, so I can understand why people don't like my position. But in the end it's the only one that doesn't rely on emotion and is logically defensible and derrivable from a single premise.

 

[jrkarp]

That's just it though and why this counter argument fails is because this is not something you can derrive from self ownership as all traditional rights can be. It's an artificial imposition of aesthetic taste on someone's rights based on how people think they should act. The distinction between being 'open to the public' and being a private club, or even a private residence, is totally artifical.

I do disagree with you here. There is a real, tangible difference between an establishment that is open to the public and one that is not.

Private property is private property. If someone could argue the above position out for me logically I'd be more agreeable to it, I've just never seen it done. It always comes down to X thinks it's wrong for Y not to serve Z, therefore Y must serve Z because X decides it's Z's right. When in fact if it is Z's right then it should be possible to show from a base of self ownership how he becomes entitled to use someone else's property.

Well, we could get into a semantic argument about whether it's Z's right to be served or it's actually a restriction on Y's right to not serve Z. I take it as the latter. I see it as Y has the right to be a racist (guaranteed by the First Amendment), and as a racist and a property owner, would have the right to not serve Z, except that the law has restricted Y's right as it applies to service in a public facility.

I do not see it as Z's right to be served because I think we throw the word "right" around too much. I see rights as fundamental rights that are (to me) God given - the right to freedom of speech, the right to elect government, the right to own firearms or other weapons, etc. What we need is a word that is between "right" and "privilege."

Of course, people in today's society don't cotton to the idea of something not belonging to them, even when it clearly doesn't, so I can understand why people don't like my position.

I agree here. I could go on for days about the arrogant, entitled attitude that people have nowadays, and the incredible lack of decency or courtesy that accompanies it.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I I'm in no rush to sacrifice one of my countries greatest characteristics- that "All men are created equal."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that line was created only for citizens who owned property, primarily white men. Even when Thomas Jefferson was writing this he owned more than 100 slaves at the time. Everything was based off of property rights and the term "all men created equal" was based on Locke's perception that these rights were God given, not government given and that the basis of freedom was the security of private property.

So that line really has nothing to do with what most people think it means.

 

[CDB]

I do disagree with you here. There is a real, tangible difference between an establishment that is open to the public and one that is not.

The difference being what though? Of course you can spot superficial differences between a members only club and a restaurant, but in the end it just comes down to the fact that someone owns it, and therefore reserves the right to allow or not allow people in as they see fit.

Well, we could get into a semantic argument about whether it's Z's right to be served or it's actually a restriction on Y's right to not serve Z. I take it as the latter. I see it as Y has the right to be a racist (guaranteed by the First Amendment), and as a racist and a property owner, would have the right to not serve Z, except that the law has restricted Y's right as it applies to service in a public facility.

I agree. By dumbing down property rights people have empowered Z at Y's expense.

I do not see it as Z's right to be served because I think we throw the word "right" around too much. I see rights as fundamental rights that are (to me) God given - the right to freedom of speech, the right to elect government, the right to own firearms or other weapons, etc. What we need is a word that is between "right" and "privilege."

License, entitlement, empowerment. People don't like them because the come with connotations they'd rather not deal with.

I agree here. I could go on for days about the arrogant, entitled attitude that people have nowadays, and the incredible lack of decency or courtesy that accompanies it.

Feel free, I like rants I agree with.

 

[CDB]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that line was created only for citizens who owned property, primarily white men. Even when Thomas Jefferson was writing this he owned more than 100 slaves at the time. Everything was based off of property rights and the term "all men created equal" was based on Locke's perception that these rights were God given, not government given and that the basis of freedom was the security of private property.

So that line really has nothing to do with what most people think it means.

I believe one draft of the Declaration actually read "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" too, not "happiness." Wonder where we'd be today had they kept that.

 

[jarhead]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that line was created only for citizens who owned property, primarily white men. Even when Thomas Jefferson was writing this he owned more than 100 slaves at the time. Everything was based off of property rights and the term "all men created equal" was based on Locke's perception that these rights were God given, not government given and that the basis of freedom was the security of private property.

So that line really has nothing to do with what most people think it means.

Don't worry, my bubble's not bursted, I've had history courses before. I personally believe all men are created equal. What I was speaking of was not the actual wording of documents, but the IDEA that many Americans(and even people from other countries used to )believe- that America is(or should be) a place where people are treated equally regardless of race, religion ,etc.

 

[jrkarp]

The difference being what though? Of course you can spot superficial differences between a members only club and a restaurant, but in the end it just comes down to the fact that someone owns it, and therefore reserves the right to allow or not allow people in as they see fit.

By virtue of holding an establishment open to the public, the owner waives his right to control access as strictly as he pleases. Otherwise, it would not be open to the public, would it?

By your theory, all establishments would be private clubs.

 

[CDB]

By virtue of holding an establishment open to the public, the owner waives his right to control access as strictly as he pleases. Otherwise, it would not be open to the public, would it?

By your theory, all establishments would be private clubs.

To be honest that makes no sense to me. Basically not requiring membership means you waive your property rights? If the owner denies someone entry or service, they are asserting their property rights. The manner in which they do so is irrelevant. If they prefer to let most people in and make judgements on a case by case basis as to who they want in and not, so what? Maybe there's a current legal distinction, but it doesn't seem valid to me on a rational basis.

I know some people in my neighborhood who leave their front doors open in the summer to help get some air flowing on hot days, and kids who leave their bicycles on their lawns. Just because something is not under lock and key doesn't mean someone else simply has the right to access. Just because it seems like somone has free access to something doesn't mean they do have that access. Someone still owns those things and has full property rights over them. Technically if you don't lock your car it makes it easier for someone to steal it. Their access is easier. That doesn't make stealing an unlocked car less of a crime than stealing a locked one.

Seems to me the difference here has nothing to do with the property owners, who to my mind probably would rather retain full property rights to their stores, but in the presumption of the people who want something but can't necessarily have it. The kid who wants some other kid's bike. The burglar who wants someone else's TV. The chop shop owner who wants someone else's Honda. The person on the side walk who wants to eat at someone else's restaurant. And that the door of the restaurant is unlocked is no more of an indicator of a right to use that property than an untended bike, an unlocked car or an open front door on a house is.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Don't worry, my bubble's not bursted, I've had history courses before. I personally believe all men are created equal. What I was speaking of was not the actual wording of documents, but the IDEA that many Americans(and even people from other countries used to )believe- that America is(or should be) a place where people are treated equally regardless of race, religion ,etc.

I'm sure you have but I still have a feeling that you weren't aware of the facts. When people actually realize what that statement really meant they generally don't want to beleive it.

Don't worry, you're in the majority who don't understand that this country was based on an elitist mentality. If you haven't studied this on an advanced level you aren't supposed to know.

The IDEA is great, but its not the reality. If we actually ran this country the way the forefathers wanted it, you would have much more to complain about. But then again, you might be shot for stating it

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I believe one draft of the Declaration actually read "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" too, not "happiness." Wonder where we'd be today had they kept that.

It was in the Declaration of Rights. I always wondered what they would think now if they saw how it was applied today.

 

[tsc]

While people have brought up some good points, the author of the article on the first page wrote this

"It's not racial profiling. It's not religious profiling. It's terrorist profiling. No ... not all Muslims are terrorists. But with only a very few -- and long ago --- isolated incidents, all terrorists are Muslims. Just about every terrorist that has hijacked a plane in the last 30 years has fit one, single description: Arab Muslim. That is the description of the suspect. The terrorists who blew up nightclubs in Bali, the terrorists who wanted to lop off the head of the Canadian prime minister ... Muslims. Every one. Every terrorist that planned to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic last week was an Muslim who, if not from the Middle East, was of Middle East decent. This isn't rocket surgery."""

a few isolated events a long time ago? Below is a reminder, something tells me they weren't that many irish muslims involved.

_ March 8, 1973: Two IRA car bombs explode outside London's Old Bailey courthouse and government's agriculture department headquarters, killing one and wounding more than 150.


_ Oct. 5, 1974: Two IRA bombs explode in pubs in London suburb of Guildford; five dead, more than 50 injured.


_ Nov. 21, 1974: Two IRA bombs in Birmingham kill 19 and wound more than 180.


_ July 20, 1982: Two IRA bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in London kill 11 British soldiers and wound more than 40, mostly civilians.


_ Dec. 17, 1983: IRA car bomb explodes outside Harrod's department store, killing six and wounding about 100.


_ Oct. 12, 1984: IRA targets conference of ruling Conservative Party, killing five and wounding 24, but narrowly missing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.


_ Sept. 22, 1989: The IRA bombs the Royal Marines School of Music in Deal, killing 10 soldiers and wounding more than 30.


_ Feb. 7, 1991: IRA fires three homemade mortar shells at No. 10 Downing Street, British prime minister's official residence in London. No injuries.


_ April 10, 1992: Massive IRA truck bomb in London's financial district kills three and causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.


_ March, 20, 1993: IRA bomb hidden in garbage can in shopping district of Warrington, northwest England, kills two boys aged 3 and 12.


_ Feb. 9, 1996: IRA ends a 17-month cease-fire with a massive truck bomb in London's financial district, killing two.


_ Feb. 18, 1996: An IRA bomber accidentally kills himself aboard a London double-decker bus, five injured.


_ June 15, 1996: For first time, IRA targets a different English city — Manchester in the northwest — with a massive truck bomb, wrecking the central shopping area and wounding about 200.


_ Sept. 20, 2000: IRA dissidents fire rocket-propelled grenaded at headquarters of MI5 security agency. No injuries.


TSC

 

[CDB]

...

Well, when the IRA flies a plane into a building in the US we'll start searching red headed ladies and guys who wear too much green who like to drink too. And Notre Dame fans. But until then I think perhaps we can all agree that both the below statements are true:

It is possible for anyone of any skin color, nationality, religion, creed, etc., to be a terrorist.

The majority of the threat posed to US citizens comes from terrorists who are largely Arabs and Muslims.

I mean, technically any white guy can be a rabbid racist and lynch a black guy. But a black guy is going to be a hell of a lot more wary of a a guy wearing a white robe and conical hat that hides his face and who is standing near a burning cross, you know? I guess it's possible he could be a part of a street acting troop, but common sense has to override idealism sometimes.

 

[tsc]

Well, when the IRA flies a plane into a building in the US we'll start searching red headed ladies and guys who wear too much green who like to drink too. And Notre Dame fans. But until then I think perhaps we can all agree that both the below statements are true:

It is possible for anyone of any skin color, nationality, religion, creed, etc., to be a terrorist.

The majority of the threat posed to US citizens comes from terrorists who are largely Arabs and Muslims.

I mean, technically any white guy can be a rabbid racist and lynch a black guy. But a black guy is going to be a hell of a lot more wary of a a guy wearing a white robe and conical hat that hides his face and who is standing near a burning cross, you know? I guess it's possible he could be a part of a street acting troop, but common sense has to override idealism sometimes.

agree with your two points, however the article refers to Britain while making the assanine statement that almost all terrorists are muslims. The country he is writing about has taken a much larger finacial, injury, and death toll from the IRA than from any of the muslim attacks on their soil. I was not referring to the US.

In theory, yes a black man would be more worried about a robed klansman. In reality, the racist that would most likely go after him (a kkk member or not) won't be dressed up in ceremonial clothing at the time. a tangent, but anyways. People with the intent to do something like this (referring to terrorists) aren't going to try to make themselves obvious. In case people have forgotten, Islam is a rapidly growing religion. Even the extremists aren't limited to arabs, there are groups in asia and africa for instance that are very "active."

I am not saying ignore the obvious threats to avoid hurting someone's feelings. The random checks in the US are retarded, I will definitely agree with it. Not too long after 9/11 I was stopped for a random check. I was one of 5 white americans on a plane of well over a hundred people (maybe 200 or so?. The majority of the rest were from the middle east, as well as several asians. It did seem stupid to pick me, as I was a US citizen coming into my own country, I had customs paperwork that I declared and had to present anyway (so they wasted a check on me regardless). Checks should be done, not randomly. Deliberate checks based on something more than skin color or religion is needed. Security workers at los vegas casinos can scan people and detect behavior patterns common among scammers. They are better at their job than anything the TSA has in place. A well developed system that was designed to single out suspicious peope with a good accuracy is needed. If we fool ourselves into believing that Muslims or arabs are the only threat, than our history is destined to repeat itself. We aren't very good as a country when it comes to making allies. We have made more and more enemies worldwide.

Will it take a major attack by a non-arab or non-muslim group to wake us up again? Having a lazerbeam focus on one section of the population leaves the door wide open for anyone else to step in. An effective system that would single out those that should be and allow me to go through security without taking my shoes off (or giving up extremely overpriced airport food and drinks) will work for me!

My main point is history shows us SEVERAL different groups and pretty much ALL races have been and still can be terrorists. Focusing on the actions and behaviors etc that they share makes more since than focusing on the flavor of the day.

TSC

 

[CDB]

agree with your two points, however the article refers to Britain while making the assanine statement that almost all terrorists are muslims. The country he is writing about has taken a much larger finacial, injury, and death toll from the IRA than from any of the muslim attacks on their soil. I was not referring to the US.

You are correct, I was taking you out of context in that.

I am not saying ignore the obvious threats to avoid hurting someone's feelings. The random checks in the US are retarded, I will definitely agree with it. Not too long after 9/11 I was stopped for a random check. I was one of 5 white americans on a plane of well over a hundred people (maybe 200 or so?. The majority of the rest were from the middle east, as well as several asians. It did seem stupid to pick me, as I was a US citizen coming into my own country, I had customs paperwork that I declared and had to present anyway (so they wasted a check on me regardless). Checks should be done, not randomly. Deliberate checks based on something more than skin color or religion is needed.

I agree. Which is why we need to talk to the Israelis. They manage to pull out the trouble makers amongst a population that while certainly not homogenous has enough Arabs and Arab looking people to make singling out Arabs problematic.

Security workers at los vegas casinos can scan people and detect behavior patterns common among scammers. They are better at their job than anything the TSA has in place. A well developed system that was designed to single out suspicious peope with a good accuracy is needed. If we fool ourselves into believing that Muslims or arabs are the only threat, than our history is destined to repeat itself. We aren't very good as a country when it comes to making allies. We have made more and more enemies worldwide.

Private firms out doing the government? I never would have suspected. :thumbsup: Not a jab at you, just a general statement as if you've read any of my posts you know I'm a free market wacko. I'm sure the casinos count their money very accurately too, while the government has been known for misplacing and out right losing billions in its accounting system. For some reason though most people think we need the government involved here though, so I just go along for the ride.

Will it take a major attack by a non-arab or non-muslim group to wake us up again?

Yes.

Having a lazerbeam focus on one section of the population leaves the door wide open for anyone else to step in. An effective system that would single out those that should be and allow me to go through security without taking my shoes off (or giving up extremely overpriced airport food and drinks) will work for me!

I usually bring water and wear loafers anyway, but I know where you're coming from. And that's only when someone manages to get me on a plane. Two bad experiences and I couldn't care if I never flew again.

My main point is history shows us SEVERAL different groups and pretty much ALL races have been and still can be terrorists. Focusing on the actions and behaviors etc that they share makes more since than focusing on the flavor of the day.

TSC

You are right, and in the larger context we should be using the ideas you mention. But in the larger context we should also not be attacking other countries without provocation and making alliances that will net us little more than enemies in the long run too. That's not likely to stop. Even were the security forces to focus on the flavor of the day, while not perfect, it would still be an improvement over our current approach.

 

[jrkarp]

To be honest that makes no sense to me. Basically not requiring membership means you waive your property rights?

If the establishment is held out as open to the public, then yes, they have waived certain rights.

You might feel that the government should not have the authority to force waiver of those rights, but what I described is legally correct.

I know some people in my neighborhood who leave their front doors open in the summer to help get some air flowing on hot days, and kids who leave their bicycles on their lawns. Just because something is not under lock and key doesn't mean someone else simply has the right to access. Just because it seems like somone has free access to something doesn't mean they do have that access. Someone still owns those things and has full property rights over them. Technically if you don't lock your car it makes it easier for someone to steal it. Their access is easier. That doesn't make stealing an unlocked car less of a crime than stealing a locked one.

A restaurant or store, labeled and advertised as such, that is open to the public (i.e. requires no membership), is different from a privately owned home. Your analogy here is flawed.

The person on the side walk who wants to eat at someone else's restaurant. And that the door of the restaurant is unlocked is no more of an indicator of a right to use that property than an untended bike, an unlocked car or an open front door on a house is.

Again, a flawed analogy. As I have said, if you want to avail yourself of the benefits of being open to the public (more customers, more money, etc), you have to waive certain property rights.

 

[jrkarp]

...

I counted (quickly) 63 dead on that list, 64 if you count the guy who blew himself up.

Compare that to the number of people killed at the Beiruit barracks bombing, Pan Am 103, and 9/11.

The IRA are terrorists, but they often phoned in warnings before the bombs exploded and they were looking to make more of a political statement than to kill as many people as possible. They did not deliberately target large numbers of people without regard to their combatant/noncombatant status.

 

[CDB]

A restaurant or store, labeled and advertised as such, that is open to the public (i.e. requires no membership), is different from a privately owned home. Your analogy here is flawed.

How so? The difference is artifical. Someone own them. I accept people into my house all the time, that doesn't mean it's open to the public. What I'm trying to get across is I realize the legal distinction and I understand what you're saying about there being a 'difference,' but the difference really isn't there in the end. In the end all those pieces of property, a restaurant, a bike and a private home, are just that: private property. Whatever access might be implied by the way an owner handles the property is just that, implied. It is not a right or an inherent difference. In so many words it's like saying the kid deserves to have his bike stolen, and the theif has a right to it, because by leaving it out he implied some level of access was allowed. Just doesn't work in my mind. Private property is private property, be it a bike, store or home. Different degrees of implied access are irrelevant.

Again, a flawed analogy. As I have said, if you want to avail yourself of the benefits of being open to the public (more customers, more money, etc), you have to waive certain property rights.

You have to because the law says you have to. That doesn't mean the law is correct anymore than enacting sentencing guidelines for theft that hand out more lenient sentences to thieves who take things whose owners didn't take extra steps to protect from being stolen would be correct.

 

[tsc]

I counted (quickly) 63 dead on that list, 64 if you count the guy who blew himself up.

Compare that to the number of people killed at the Beiruit barracks bombing, Pan Am 103, and 9/11.

The IRA are terrorists, but they often phoned in warnings before the bombs exploded and they were looking to make more of a political statement than to kill as many people as possible. They did not deliberately target large numbers of people without regard to their combatant/noncombatant status.

What is your point?

I WAS TALKING ABOUT ENGLAND. Your numbers are correct 64 dead, 779 wounded. I didn't realize "sensibly" killing and injuring people for your cause makes a better, more forgiveable terrorist?? Every attack by any group is a political statement. Did you look at the list? Government officials and civilians were both targeted. The severity of attacks elsewhere is no excuse to ignore history. The IRA phoned ahead to take credit, Al-queda takes credit afterwards is either excusable?

TSC

 

[jrkarp]

What is your point?

I WAS TALKING ABOUT ENGLAND. Your numbers are correct 64 dead, 779 wounded. I didn't realize "sensibly" killing and injuring people for your cause makes a better, more forgiveable terrorist?? Every attack by any group is a political statement. Did you look at the list? Government officials and civilians were both targeted. The severity of attacks elsewhere is no excuse to ignore history. The IRA phoned ahead to take credit, Al-queda takes credit afterwards is either excusable?

TSC

Never said it was excusable.

And I know you were talking about England. Perhaps you are not aware that there has not been an IRA bombing since 2001and that the IRA are no longer considered a threat and were never a threat on the level of Al Qaeda.

I did look at the list. You obviously didn't read my post. I said "They did not deliberately target large numbers of people without regard to their combatant/noncombatant status."

Phoning ahead is a warning. It's not taking credit. Warnings can allow for evacuation prior to the actual explosion.

And finally, all terrorism is not equally political. The IRA actually had a tangible political agenda, that is the end of British rule of Northern Ireland. The ultimate goal of the Islamic fascists is the killing or conversion of all non-Muslims. There is a significant difference.

For the record, I do consider the IRA to be a terrorist organization. But their actions are nothing like those of al Qaeda.

 

[jrkarp]

How so? The difference is artifical. Someone own them. I accept people into my house all the time, that doesn't mean it's open to the public. What I'm trying to get across is I realize the legal distinction and I understand what you're saying about there being a 'difference,' but the difference really isn't there in the end. In the end all those pieces of property, a restaurant, a bike and a private home, are just that: private property.

We're never going to agree on this, and our views aren't actually that different, but a restaurant is built, designed and intended to conduct business and serve large numbers of strangers. Your home was not.

Whatever access might be implied by the way an owner handles the property is just that, implied. It is not a right or an inherent difference. In so many words it's like saying the kid deserves to have his bike stolen, and the theif has a right to it, because by leaving it out he implied some level of access was allowed.

It's not saying that at all, because of the inherent and unavoidable differences between a piece of personal property and a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public.

You have to because the law says you have to.

Well, yes.

That doesn't mean the law is correct

Another lawyer at my firm always says

Law and justice go hand in hand
only in the courts of Fairy Land.

 

[CDB]

We're never going to agree on this, and our views aren't actually that different, but a restaurant is built, designed and intended to conduct business and serve large numbers of strangers. Your home was not.

That would depend on my personal habits now wouldn't it? :twisted:

And still, the number of people one expects to serve doesn't necessarily impart a right to service on any specific person to my mind. Just because my hot tub can hold eight doesn't mean I can't enjoy it with only one other person.

It's not saying that at all, because of the inherent and unavoidable differences between a piece of personal property and a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public.

There's the rub of it, because to my mind there is no such thing as "a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public." All property is private property, regardless of its location, purpose, design, etc.

Another lawyer at my firm always says

Law and justice go hand in hand
only in the courts of Fairy Land.

I'd agree in reality, but still insist on fighting for the ideal.

 

[jrkarp]

There's the rub of it, because to my mind there is no such thing as "a piece of real property that is held out as open to the public." All property is private property, regardless of its location, purpose, design, etc.

You speak in such absolutes. It's true, all non-public property is private. You feel that there should be no distinction between types of private property. I think that's a little too absolute.

I'd agree in reality, but still insist on fighting for the ideal.

You and me both. Imagine how I feel when my clients are getting shafted.

 

[brittishbulldog]

Im English myself and the new checks in the airports will make it harder for a terrorist attack. I flew from Amsterdam and did not even get seached I look like a arab but Im noteven my 6 year old daughter was seached, I was trully shocking that they did not seach me. It made be paranoid thoughout the short flight to England there was a few dark skined people on the plane, I hardly took my eyes of them and would have beat the crap out of them if they did any thing strange, They were just going on holiday like every one elce they were't terrorists just normall people the newspapers and goverments around the world are making everyone
very paranoid, I am normally fine about being on a plane.
On the flight out of England we could not even take water on the plane for a 5 month old baby and we had to taste the milk before we went though, The mad thing is if someone terrorist is going to kill them selves and there familly they would be willing to drink anything to get it on the plane. so the new checks do make it harder they will not stop a terrorist attack from happening. the chances are terrorists will board a plane from someone elce like Romania and blow the plane up over London,
there should be a internatinall regulations like the ones in Britain
but better. The terrorists that were caught should be put inthe tower of London and tortured for being a traters. After all under English law they could still do this.

 

[CDB]

but better. The terrorists that were caught should be put inthe tower of London and tortured for being a traters. After all under English law they could still do this.

It'd be interesting if you combined old school torture with new school political correctness. "Put him in the Iron Maiden! Make sure you let him out 5 times a day to pray though, and don't serve pork at dinner." There's nothing wrong in the Middle East that a lot of sausage and porn wouldn't solve. We need a combo Denny's/strip club on every street corner and our problems would be solved.

 

[Irish_Rogue]

I know this thread is a bit old and has a few comments every now and again.

How is it that the IRA is terrorists? America does not list them as a terrorist organization. Unless you lived in Northern Ireland as I did in the 70's and 80's you have no idea the cruelty that was committed on us by the Dirty Orange Bastards. I do not like any innocent person by any means to be harmed. The locations targeted by the P-IRA were that of loyalists to the crown, England would reimburse all expenses to damaged caused by the IRA (funny how all damage was always caused by the IRA), so businesses were attacked to bankrupt England (which failed, it did cause England a great deal of money though).

All bombs had more than a 5-hour warning sometimes days that a certain business, not an area, exact location was being targeted. Just a side note, not all bombs were from the P-IRA, a lot came from the UDF and loyalist English groups too, none of which were given warnings and caused a lot of the deaths mentioned above.
Our country was invaded and a foreign government enforced, how would Americans react to a situation similar to this? Let me know what it feels like to watch your father murder by British troops in front of you and let me know how you would react to them?
Sorry, I am wound up over this. Being in Iraq I can understand the "true" Iraqi's wanting to fight for their country and their rights, it is very hard to have an oppressor come in and force their ways on you overnight.

I know what does this have to do with England's new restrictions. I have not a clue, just replying to the IRA portion. Thanks for allowing me to rant a bit.

 

[brittishbulldog]

I know this thread is a bit old and has a few comments every now and again.

How is it that the IRA is terrorists? America does not list them as a terrorist organization. Unless you lived in Northern Ireland as I did in the 70's and 80's you have no idea the cruelty that was committed on us by the Dirty Orange Bastards. I do not like any innocent person by any means to be harmed. The locations targeted by the P-IRA were that of loyalists to the crown, England would reimburse all expenses to damaged caused by the IRA (funny how all damage was always caused by the IRA), so businesses were attacked to bankrupt England (which failed, it did cause England a great deal of money though).

All bombs had more than a 5-hour warning sometimes days that a certain business, not an area, exact location was being targeted. Just a side note, not all bombs were from the P-IRA, a lot came from the UDF and loyalist English groups too, none of which were given warnings and caused a lot of the deaths mentioned above.
Our country was invaded and a foreign government enforced, how would Americans react to a situation similar to this? Let me know what it feels like to watch your father murder by British troops in front of you and let me know how you would react to them?
Sorry, I am wound up over this. Being in Iraq I can understand the "true" Iraqi's wanting to fight for their country and their rights, it is very hard to have an oppressor come in and force their ways on you overnight.

I know what does this have to do with England's new restrictions. I have not a clue, just replying to the IRA portion. Thanks for allowing me to rant a bit.

I was in belfast in 97 i lived in southern ireland for a bit, before i went to belfast all i knew of the north was what i had seen on tv and from what people had said, i expected the people to be ass holes i was really shocked how nice they were had a great time, i live in holland but if holland or england got invaded and my family were killed or not i would fight for sure with guns bombs or anything i could get my hands on, i would not hold it agaist anyone for fighting, but the people who knew victims of terrorist attacks also want justice and from a different angle if any of my friends or familly were hurt from a terrorist attack i would go out and kill as many dark people i could. it would not matter if they were terrist or not i would't give a ****. sorry about going on but im trying to make a point if my family friends were killed or hurt my a dutch person/black/german/ french ect ect i would go out and make people from those countries pay i know its wrong but its human nature.

 

[Irish_Rogue]

I was in belfast in 97 i lived in southern ireland for a bit, before i went to belfast all i knew of the north was what i had seen on tv and from what people had said, i expected the people to be ass holes i was really shocked how nice they were had a great time, i live in holland but if holland or england got invaded and my family were killed or not i would fight for sure with guns bombs or anything i could get my hands on, i would not hold it agaist anyone for fighting, but the people who knew victims of terrorist attacks also want justice and from a different angle if any of my friends or familly were hurt from a terrorist attack i would go out and kill as many dark people i could. it would not matter if they were terrist or not i would't give a ****. sorry about going on but im trying to make a point if my family friends were killed or hurt my a dutch person/black/german/ french ect ect i would go out and make people from those countries pay i know its wrong but its human nature.

spot on! I can see it from all angles as well. I just see it mostly from an Irishman who wants his country, language and freedom back. You make a valid point though.

 

[Skyblue]

I disagree. Do you know how many people in this country, let alone travelers, APPEAR to be of Arab-descent, but are actually Italian, Hispanic, Indian? Or how about the thousands of arabs that live in the US that are citizens, peaceful, trying to live an American way of life. We are a FREE country. To take the rights away from a group of people (such as Invasion of Privacy) based on physical appearence is just rediculous and goes against what this country stands for: FREEDOM. You might as well give your guns away and put cameras in your house, because the constitution is just a snot rag if we started doing that. Just my .02. If we went by that logic, than every male ages 15-55 in every Arab country would be suspect. The very effort we are putting to 'modernize' and 'liberate' these countries would be a waste of time.

Hmm. These people are trained to determine who is from where - i'm quite sure a trained professional would have an easy time distinguishing between an Indian, a Saudi, an Egyptian, and an Italian. Its not that hard.

 

[spatch]

To those muslims who are against the selective searching of muslims at airports...

BLAME IT ON THE TERROROST, NOT AIRPORT SECURITY.

I mean if teenagers start bombing pakring garages with car bombs, I will feel unsafe if my car is not searched.

Speaking of teens and cars, we are charged more for auto insurance. Do I complain saying that its unfair? No. Its smart. Cant tell you how many idiots think they are badass hitting 110 on the highway.

This makes me believe I have severe genetic misfortune. I am a white, christian, american, in shape male. I am quickly becoming the largest minority in the country. Perhaps if I sat on the couch eatin pizza, made my skin darker, and converted to Islam I would be better off. Atleast then when I got what I deserved, such as being forced to buy 2 tickets on an airplane or tazered by the cops because I was a minority, not because of the loaded gun I had on me, I could complain.

 

[brittishbulldog]

To those muslims who are against the selective searching of muslims at airports...

BLAME IT ON THE TERROROST, NOT AIRPORT SECURITY.

I mean if teenagers start bombing pakring garages with car bombs, I will feel unsafe if my car is not searched.

Speaking of teens and cars, we are charged more for auto insurance. Do I complain saying that its unfair? No. Its smart. Cant tell you how many idiots think they are badass hitting 110 on the highway.

This makes me believe I have severe genetic misfortune. I am a white, christian, american, in shape male. I am quickly becoming the largest minority in the country. Perhaps if I sat on the couch eatin pizza, made my skin darker, and converted to Islam I would be better off. Atleast then when I got what I deserved, such as being forced to buy 2 tickets on an airplane or tazered by the cops because I was a minority, not because of the loaded gun I had on me, I could complain.

i have no fear when flying when i was a small child my parents allways looked under the car to check to see if there was a bomb luckly i dont need to do the same, if im on a plane and think someone has a bomb i will deal with it myself even if i end up in prison for beating a poor man who looks dodgy and is acting strange