Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed

[Candyvan Stan]

Passengers refuse to allow holiday jet to take off until two Asian men are thrown off plane

By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE and ANDREW CHAPMAN 12:08pm 20th August 2006

British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.

The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it.

The incident fuels the row over airport security following the arrest of more than 20 people allegedly planning the suicide-bombing of transatlantic jets from the UK to America. It comes amid growing demands for passenger-profiling and selective security checks.

It also raised fears that more travellers will take the law into their own hands - effectively conducting their own 'passenger profiles'.

The passenger revolt came as Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary was accused of using the terror crisis to make money. Government sources say he boasted to an official at the Transport Department: "Every time I appear on TV, I get a spike in sales."

The Tories said the Government's failure to reassure travellers had led the Malaga passengers to 'behave irrationally' and 'hand a victory to terrorists'.

Websites used by pilots and cabin crew were yesterday reporting further incidents. In one, two British women with young children on another flight from Spain complained about flying with a bearded Muslim even though he had been security-checked twice before boarding.

The trouble in Malaga flared last Wednesday as two British citizens in their 20s waited in the departure lounge to board the pre-dawn flight and were heard talking what passengers took to be Arabic. Worries spread after a female passenger said she had heard something that alarmed her.

Passengers noticed that, despite the heat, the pair were wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers and were regularly checking their watches.

Initially, six passengers refused to board the flight. On board the aircraft, word reached one family. To the astonishment of cabin crew, they stood up and walked off, followed quickly by others.

The Monarch pilot - a highly experienced captain - accompanied by armed Civil Guard police and airport security staff, approached the two men and took their passports.

Half an hour later, police returned and escorted the two Asian passengers off the jet.

'There was no fuss or panic'

Soon afterwards, the aircraft was cleared while police did a thorough security sweep. Nothing was found and the plane took off - three hours late and without the two men on board.

Monarch arranged for them to spend the rest of the night in an airport hotel and flew them back to Manchester later on Wednesday.

College lecturer Jo Schofield, her husband Heath and daughters Emily, 15, and Isabel, 12, were caught up in the passenger mutiny.

Mrs Schofield, 38, said: "The plane was not yet full and it became apparent that people were refusing to board. In the gate waiting area, people had been talking about these two, who looked really suspicious with their heavy clothing, scruffy, rough, appearance and long hair.

"Some of the older children, who had seen the terror alert on television, were starting to mutter things like, 'Those two look like they're bombers.'

"Then a family stood up and walked off the aircraft. They were joined by others, about eight in all. We learned later that six or seven people had refused to get on the plane.

"There was no fuss or panic. People just calmly and quietly got off the plane. There were no racist taunts or any remarks directed at the men.

"It was an eerie scene, very quiet. The children were starting to ask what was going on. We tried to play it down."

Mr Schofield, 40, an area sales manager, said: "When the men were taken off they didn't argue or say a word. They just picked up their coats and obeyed the police. They seemed resigned to the fact they were under suspicion.

"The captain and crew were very apologetic when we were asked to evacuate the plane for the security search. But there was no dissent.

"While we were waiting, everyone agreed the men looked dodgy. Some passengers were very panicky and in tears. There was a lot of talking about terrorists."

Patrick Mercer, the Tory Homeland Security spokesman, said last night: "This is a victory for terrorists. These people on the flight have been terrorised into behaving irrationally.

"For those unfortunate two men to be victimised because of the colour of their skin is just nonsense."

Monarch said last night: "The captain was concerned about the security surrounding the two gentlemen on the aircraft and the decision was taken to remove them from the flight for further security checks.

"The two passengers offloaded from the flight were later cleared by airport security and rebooked to travel back to Manchester on a later flight."

A spokesman for the Civil Guard in Malaga said: "These men had aroused suspicion because of their appearance and the fact that they were speaking in a foreign language thought to be an Arabic language, and the pilot was refusing to take off until they were escorted off the plane."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401419&in_page_id=1770

Another score for the terrorists.

[Klilynkun]

For those unfortunate two men to be victimised because of the colour of their skin is just nonsense

Patrick Mercer is an idiot. They weren't victimised because of the color of their skin. They were victimised because they were, or at least looked like, they were muslim. And apparently wearing clothes which was not typical for the type of weather.

As you can see, the men seemed fine about the entire suspicion. Although this most likely will be hard on them the more it happens. I don't think it's anybody's fault really....apart from the people who blow people up and stuff. Everybody is on edge after the things which have taken place. Of course people are going to be extremely cautious.

[Ironfrost]

Patrick Mercer is an idiot. They weren't victimised because of the color of their skin. They were victimised because they were, or at least looked like, they were muslim. And apparently wearing clothes which was not typical for the type of weather.

From what I heard, they weren't doing anything to make people think that - the only things they were reported to be doing were talking to each other and checking their watches. The only reason anybody could possibly have for assuming that is the fact that they were Asian; in other words, the colour of their skin.

[Klilynkun]

From what I heard, they weren't doing anything to make people think that - the only things they were reported to be doing were talking to each other and checking their watches. The only reason anybody could possibly have for assuming that is the fact that they were Asian; in other words, the colour of their skin.

I doubt that. If it was two white guys with beards, dressed as muslims looking at their watch and talking to each other in arabic, i think the same thing would have happened.

and being asian is not the "color" of someones skin

[Ichisan]

And they were dressed 'scruffily'. Maybe that means they were wearing Pakistani style clothes?

I guess the lesson for terrorists is shave and wear a suit. Same goes for drug smugglers. You attract far less suspicion that way.

[Klilynkun]

And they were dressed 'scruffily'. Maybe that means they were wearing Pakistani style clothes?

I guess the lesson for terrorists is shave and wear a suit. Same goes for drug smugglers. You attract far less suspicion that way.

Exactly :watson:

[Trump]

I thought they already knew that? Or seriously should have.

[Klilynkun]

There's some really stupid/ignorant people out there :meh:

[ruaidhri]

Fear often isn't reasonable.

Our governments purposely scare us and make us paranoid about our neighbors. Why should anyone be surprised when people react out of fear to other people who fit their personal profiles of how a terrorist looks or acts.

I can sit back and say how horrible it was that those two men were injured by this behavior. Still, I can't help but question how I might have felt had I been on that plane with a couple of young children and my wife. Would I have been willing to take the risk no matter how small? That's how powerful fear is. It makes us act without reason.

[Lady Chris]

Exactly, people can be made to believe anything if they fear the possibility of it being true

[Vic_Rattlehead]

That's really embarrasing.

They used to do the same with the Irish, and also search like crazy in luggage when there were flights from the Republic.(even though 'the troubles' occur in the north. :S )

[Candyvan Stan]

Dutch arrest 12 in flight alert
Dutch police have arrested 12 passengers after a US flight en route to India had to return to Amsterdam because of a security alert.
The pilot turned back over German airspace after the crew said a number of passengers on the flight to Mumbai (Bombay) were behaving suspiciously.

Two Dutch air force jets escorted the the Northwest airlines plane back to Amsterdam's Schiphol airport.

Police are questioning other passengers and crew members.

No further details of the arrests have been given.

Police began questioning several of the 149 passengers on board once the flight had landed.

The airline said flight 42 had turned back after "a couple of passengers displayed behaviour of concern".

It said the same flight would be operating on Thursday, and passengers were being accommodated in nearby hotels.

'Substantial' threat

No extra security measures are in place at the airport.


The threat level at Schiphol had returned to normal, airport spokeswoman Pamela Kuypers said.
The Netherlands' national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism said there was no reason to upgrade the country's terror alert level, which is currently at "substantial", the second-highest of four levels.

Security levels at airports across the world were raised two weeks ago after British police said they had foiled a plot to blow up a number of trans-Atlantic flights.

Several security alerts since then have seen flights diverted, passengers removed or planes searched.

The Dutch secret service said in March that the Iraq war and the presence of Dutch troops in Afghanistan could motivate possible attacks and encourage the recruitment of Islamist militants in the Netherlands.

Earlier this year, a Dutch court convicted nine Muslims of belonging to a terrorist group and planning to attack politicians.

In June 2005, a Dutch court sentenced a 27-year-old radical Islamist to life in prison for murdering the controversial film-maker Theo van Gogh the previous year.





Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/5278092.stm

Unrelated, but I didn't want to post a new thread about it.

[h2orowe]

Patrick Mercer is an idiot. They weren't victimised because of the color of their skin. They were victimised because they were, or at least looked like, they were muslim.
(2 seperate posts quoted together)
and being asian is not the "color" of someones skin
1)Even if they weren't being suspected by the color of their skin, is being discriminated like that due to your religion any better? I guess it's ok, considering all the muslims are terrorists :O Maybe I should just not talk to any more Christians, because all they like to do is talk your ear off about some douche bag named Jesus.
2)If someone is picked on because they're black, that's picking on them for the color of their skin, which falls under racism. If someone is picked on because they're Asian, that's racism too.

[trckstr]

Patrick Mercer is an idiot. They weren't victimised because of the color of their skin. They were victimised because they were, or at least looked like, they were muslim. And apparently wearing clothes which was not typical for the type of weather.

As you can see, the men seemed fine about the entire suspicion. Although this most likely will be hard on them the more it happens. I don't think it's anybody's fault really....apart from the people who blow people up and stuff. Everybody is on edge after the things which have taken place. Of course people are going to be extremely cautious.

You cannot seriously believe that the color of their skin had nothing to do with them appearing like middle eastern men (potential terrorists as john q public sees it). First off asian people do not grow facial hair the way middle eastern men do. it does not come anywhere close to being as full. secondly they were not wearing middle eastern garb. they were wearing leather jackets and jumpers. not exactly clothes associated with muslims. so what does that leave for them to be mistaken as muslims? nothing really except for their faces and the fact that they were speaking a strange language.

just because the men did not put up a fight or shout indignantly about being accused of being a security threat does not mean they were fine with it. and they should not have to be fine with it. it is extremely humiliating, inconvenient and disappointing to be falsely accused that you would do such an abominable act just because of the way you look and speak. caution is no excuse for paranoia.

[Karthak]

This is just pathetic. "Oooh, they`re oddly dressed and speaking a language I can`t understand(most languages in the world) so of course they must be terrorists". Bin Laden is probably laughing his ass off.

[RotoruaBoy]

those that fuels the terrorist's works by spreading fear, are doing the work for them, doesn't matter if it was unintentional, that's just ugly human nature everyone bears.

innocent man was shot because someone feared they were dangerous, peaceful countries destroied because some polititians think they were a threat.

what happened on flight ZB613, was nothing new, it's simply what our forefathers have been doing to each other for centuries.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

You know, the human race fails so hard at the moment that it astounds me that we can be that ignorant.

[Trump]

That sentence just helps prove your point.

[erised]

Slightly off topic, but once when I was going thru airport security I was really upset and about to cry. I put my bag on the xray machine and went thru the metal detector. When I went to get my bags at the end of the conveyor belt, a security man had my purse. He saw me walking up, and I could see the dread register on his face (he obviously didn't want to deal w/a crying 20 year old girl). He held up the purse and asked if it was mine. I said "Yes!" and burst out crying. He just said "OK, here" and gave it back to me in a hurry. I took it and left. I'm still not sure what they wanted w/it. Probably didn't like the looks of my nail file. lol

This was after all the extra security had been added to airports, so I guess terrorists could employ young girls to cry and get past male security guards.

[MNJetter]

They were Asian and "appeared" to be speaking in Arabic.

Judging from the fact that they were Asian, I wonder what language they were really speaking? I'm guessing that actual Arabic is unlikely.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Uh, the Middle East is in Asia folks. Arabic countries are, for the most part (entirely?) in Asia. I'm also relatively certain that Arabic is the third most spoken in Asia (after Chinese and Hindi, most likely). It is also relatively distinct from Hindi or Chinese, so I'd suggest that there's a fair shot they were actually speaking Arabic, yeah?

[Stephy]

Hm. So this is based on their language they spoke, the clothing they wore, and the color of their skin? How the mind so easily takes such biased thoughts and reacts so quickly without reason. To even begin judging the two men so promptly, display how fearful and a bit racist people can be, but with all the airline/plane troubles that has happened throughout the past years and even recently in the UK, it is a bit reasonable. Unfortunately, those two innocent men had to be mistreated due to fear.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Most Arabs do not hijack/blow up airplanes. However, most recent hijackings/blowing ups of airplanes have been perpetrated by Arabs. There is reason for this bias. You may not agree or like it, but there is reason. It ain't fuckin' racist, it's just common sense. Until little Ms. Suburbia starts to crash planes into buildings, people just aren't going to fear the little blonde girl asking for a diet coke from the attendant before take off.

[chad mullet]

Uh, the Middle East is in Asia folks. Arabic countries are, for the most part (entirely?) in Asia. I'm also relatively certain that Arabic is the third most spoken in Asia (after Chinese and Hindi, most likely). It is also relatively distinct from Hindi or Chinese, so I'd suggest that there's a fair shot they were actually speaking Arabic, yeah?

I saw the two men tonight on BBC news. They are of Pakistani origin judging by their appearance and I reckon they will speak Urdu or Punjabi as do the Pakistanis here in Scotland.Both of these guys were born and educated in England and speak fluent English. So what possible reason could they have to speak a foreign tongue on a plane full of English people on their way home from a holiday?

It can only be because they knew it would be provocative and intimidating in the current climate. They were relying on the British trait of not liking to make a fuss .But everything is different now and instead they got their collars felt by the Spanish police.

Well done the passengers and the pilot in my opinion - people like these two men need to know that our tolerance in Britain,which they have hitherto exploited, is not limitless.

[Stephy]

There is reason for this bias. You may not agree or like it, but there is reason.

:blank: I know this...

Shy: "it is a bit reasonable. Unfortunately, those two innocent men had to be mistreated due to fear."

It ain't fuckin' racist, it's just common sense.

I wasn't sure about this, which is why I put "a bit racist" I wasn't sure how to go about it. Kind of borderline about that. True, though, it basically is commen sense, doesn't mean there are some people who won't be racist in a way about things. I guess.

I don't know. I am stupid. :P

[trckstr]

you're right. 8 passengers and the pilot in the cockpit know exactly who the terrorists are and should be conducting the airport security on a visual basis. nevermind all the other checkpoints during a time of heightened security. in fact, we should just ban all middle eastern looking people from flying altogether just so everyone else can be comfortable. clearly that is what will stop all terrorism.

[Pierrot le Fou]

:blank: I know this...

Shy: "it is a bit reasonable. Unfortunately, those two innocent men had to be mistreated due to fear."



I wasn't sure about this, which is why I put "a bit racist" I wasn't sure how to go about it. Kind of borderline about that. True, though, it basically is commen sense, doesn't mean there are some people who won't be racist in a way about things. I guess.

I don't know. I am stupid. :P
You also said "How the mind so easily takes such biased thoughts and reacts so quickly without reason." So either you find what they did reasonable but without reason, or you contradicted yourself.

And I didn't say that this was right, mind you, I just said that there is a reason for the bias, not that the bias is acceptable when taken to extremes like it was in this case. You're still far less likely to get blown up on an airplane than you are to die in a car wreck or somesuch.

[Stephy]

Yeah, I seem to do that often ;p.

Oh I meant at first they reacted quickly without reason... but then... I felt it was reasonable. Ha! Thanks. I have a habit of saying things without realizing what I said.

I heard that before. Also something like, more likely to get struck by lightening then die by a plane crash or more likely you would be hit by a donkey or something like that. Stay away from the donkeys, PLF. ;p

[Psychochink]

...what possible reason could they have to speak a foreign tongue on a plane full of English people on their way home from a holiday?

It can only be because they knew it would be provocative and intimidating in the current climate...

It couldn't possibly be because people prefer to speak in the language that they use around the house and are most comfortable with now, could it?

[CrazyAce86]

Terrorism and racism, the old bedmates strike again.

It's things like this that make me want to pack up and move to another planet some days.

...

I need a drink.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It couldn't possibly be because people prefer to speak in the language that they use around the house and are most comfortable with now, could it?
Nope. Because only terrorists don't speak English when in the Great English Kingdom!

[Beowulf]

Racial/Religious profiling is seriously one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. You can't profile a muslim based on color. Not only is it a form of racism but it's also impossible. One of the terrorists in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was nicknamed "Red" because he was white, had red hair, and lots of freckles. If we start profiling for arab muslims then the terrorists will just get some white recruits from Chechnya, or black Islamists from north africa and slip right on through. Profiling for a religion is fucking pointless.

[ruaidhri]

Fear is a powerful enemy. It destroys reason. It ignores political correctness and logic. It is totally irrational.

Now, I’ve said the same thing in three separate sentences. Fear caused what happened on that plane. It wouldn’t have made any difference if those two individuals had been singled out and given complete body searches prior to boarding. It wouldn’t have made any difference if the entire plane had been searched for any explosive device before takeoff. Those two men were not welcome because of fear. Not only did they fit the average man and woman’s common image of a terrorist, they spoke what other passengers assumed to be Arabic, dressed inappropriately, looked furtively at their watches and otherwise acted suspicious. Through word of mouth the fear spread from passenger to passenger.

I’m probably more liberal than most other members on OP9. I certainly decry the fact that such fear controls our lives. But, like it or not, it does! I don’t like profiling of any type, racial or otherwise. But then, like everyone else, I want to prevent terrorists from blowing something else up and killing more people. That’s what terrorists do, create fear. Has anyone considered that perhaps those two young men were employing a different type of terrorism by purposely scaring the other passengers. Eliciting fear can be fun for the perpetrator but a form of terrorism for the unsuspecting victim.

Actually, I find it hard to believe that the two men were not aware that their appearance and behavior would raise eyebrows in today’s environment of fear. Does anyone else find this peculiar.

What should the airline have done in this situation? They chose to remove the two offending passengers. Why? Because other passengers were refusing to fly with them. What would the airlines liability have been if that plane had taken off and for any reason had had any type of incident while in flight? Obviously, they didn’t wish to take that risk.

Yes, it’s sad what the world has become.

[chad mullet]

It couldn't possibly be because people prefer to speak in the language that they use around the house and are most comfortable with now, could it?


Whether or not they speak some foreign language at home is neither here nor there.

These two men are British born and educated and are therefore equally at home speaking English - so why should they suddenly choose to display their multi-lingual skills on a plane full of non-Urdu speaking English holiday makers.

They must have known that their behaviour would cause consternation and fear among the people who had to share the plane with them.

[MNJetter]

Uh, the Middle East is in Asia folks. Arabic countries are, for the most part (entirely?) in Asia. I'm also relatively certain that Arabic is the third most spoken in Asia (after Chinese and Hindi, most likely). It is also relatively distinct from Hindi or Chinese, so I'd suggest that there's a fair shot they were actually speaking Arabic, yeah?

Ah - I was under the impression from the way the article was written that they were talking about "Asian" as in the commonly accepted racial label, and not as a continent. If they were from a Middle Eastern country, I would have expected them to label the apparent race as Middle Eastern, since, same continent or not, it is the acceptable racial term. Just a linguistic misinterpretation on my part. Though I think they could have worded the article more clearly.

[Plekto]

Maybe I should just not talk to any more Christians, because all they like to do is talk your ear off about some douche bag named Jesus.
***
It's actually a pretty good policy. :)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Whether or not they speak some foreign language at home is neither here nor there.

These two men are British born and educated and are therefore equally at home speaking English - so why should they suddenly choose to display their multi-lingual skills on a plane full of non-Urdu speaking English holiday makers.

They must have known that their behaviour would cause consternation and fear among the people who had to share the plane with them.
You misunderstood the point. If they are both more comfortable speaking in Urdu than they are speaking in English, then there is nothing wrong with speaking in Urdu. In Japan, when with another native English speaker, even if they speak Japanese perfectly, I will speak English -- I don't care if surrounded by Japanese, Somalians, Qatarians, or anyone else.

[Ceirnian]

Whether or not they speak some foreign language at home is neither here nor there.

These two men are British born and educated and are therefore equally at home speaking English - so why should they suddenly choose to display their multi-lingual skills on a plane full of non-Urdu speaking English holiday makers.

They must have known that their behaviour would cause consternation and fear among the people who had to share the plane with them.

Maybe they just wanted to talk without people listening in on their conversation? A different language shouldn't really be something you'd think people would be afraid of.

[ShadowDeth]

Maybe they just wanted to talk without people listening in on their conversation? A different language shouldn't really be something you'd think people would be afraid of.

Maybe I just wanted to soak myself in animal blood and swim in a shark tank? They have no right to visciously mutilate me!

[Spike]

I liked your old avy Shadow.

[ShadowDeth]

Which one was that? I had a few

[RotoruaBoy]

Whether or not they speak some foreign language at home is neither here nor there.

These two men are British born and educated and are therefore equally at home speaking English - so why should they suddenly choose to display their multi-lingual skills on a plane full of non-Urdu speaking English holiday makers.

They must have known that their behaviour would cause consternation and fear among the people who had to share the plane with them.
apart from it is their basic human right to use any language to communicate at will, the language they use in school and the language they use at home are indeed different things, they were born into their families first, then they came to know the english society.

many native americans can understand english perfectly since they were born in a society that ultilize english, but they still use their own language out of pride and respect, whenever native americans speak their native tongue in public, should it be treated like they are plotting to take their land back from the gonverment?

in the UK, many cops are of pakistani origin and speak the native tongue in many occasions, some are even muslims. should they be considered as undercover terrorists? by the way this world is going, it's quite possible.

if the passengers was relaxed and just let it loose, it sure would be a different story. even when everyone on the plane fear that they are dangerous, it only takes one person to stir up the scene, in this case, the first passengers that got out of the aircraft. of course everyone were aware that they could just turn out to be normal people, they just didn't want to take their chances at the time. british or not, it would happen in any situation.

[ShadowDeth]

whenever native americans speak their native tongue in public, should it be treated like they are plotting to take their land back from the gonverment?

Short answer? Yes.

Correct answer? Of course not, but that isn't how reality works. How a situation should proceed and how it *will* are very often two seperate issues, as I attempted to illustrate with the shark post.

[h2orowe]

Haha, oh man, maybe I should pretend to speak Arabic when I'm at the airport now. I want to be on the news.

[Spike]

Which one was that? I had a few

The only one I remember is the black and white picture of you(assuming) in a hooded sweater.

[Kass]

Good lord, I hope I don't live around most of you guys.

One, they can speak whatever language they want because they can. They might actually be more comfortable speaking whatever language they were speaking. Just because someone is born or educated in Britain doesn't mean they speak the language. Immigrant communities are quite good at insular behavior and frequently raise generations of linguistically and culturally isolated children.

And it's none of anyone's business.

Maybe, just maybe, they were wearing leather jackets because they were cold. One of the gals in my office swears the next ice age is coming if the temperature drops below 85. She wears sweaters through most of the summer. Not everyone has the same comfort level. Planes are also kept at a pretty chilly temperature. I always take a sweater when I fly. I have flight attendant friends who tell me what people do with and under those blankets. Thanks, but I'll pass on that nastiness. It might have also been easier than carrying them.

Who knows, but maybe they were checking their watch because they wanted to know when the plane woulds start boarding. Maybe they were debating whether or not they had time for that third cup of coffee.

Would I have looked at them twice? Probably, but I look at everyone twice. The next major terrorist event that succeeds will likely be carried out by a bunch of white guys who have converted to radical Islam. It will be so shocking and everyone will wonder how they could have missed it.

They probably missed it because they were to busy being narrow-minded, nosy nellies and ignored the people who looked just like them.

[Klilynkun]

i should probably walk through the airport talking in piglatin lol
or speaking backwards like that magician/witch who was in the jla... i think her name is something like zatanna or something like that.

I don't look twice at people at all. I just come to the conclusion that if it's gonna happen... then it's gonna happen. I remember when 9/11 happened and a friend of mine was gonna fly to new york in october and everybody was saying she was crazy, but she felt that if she is gonna die...she's just gonna die. There's no point being scared of it. Isn't that the whole point of terrorism anyway? To force you into a certain position?

[Ironfrost]

Ah - I was under the impression from the way the article was written that they were talking about "Asian" as in the commonly accepted racial label, and not as a continent. If they were from a Middle Eastern country, I would have expected them to label the apparent race as Middle Eastern, since, same continent or not, it is the acceptable racial term. Just a linguistic misinterpretation on my part. Though I think they could have worded the article more clearly.

Different countries use different racial terms. In the UK, "asian" generally refers to people from India and Pakistan, so as the article comes from a British newspaper and the non-terrorists were of Pakistani origin, the writer used the correct term.

[Beowulf]

The next major terrorist event that succeeds will likely be carried out by a bunch of white guys who have converted to radical Islam. It will be so shocking and everyone will wonder how they could have missed it.
Exactly my point!

The minute you start looking for one thing it would just make it easier for other terrorists. They wouldn't even have to convert white folk, there are plenty of pissed off white muslims from the Balkan regions.

The gas station next to my work is manned entirely by arabs/north africans. This sort of happened by accident (a Sudanese man who works there also works with me as a security guard) as they just gravitated to a place where they could find some familiarity in this country. They all speak some sort of middle eastern/north african language (I always forget to ask what) to each other. I never make the assumption that they're planning to blow my local Shell station for Allah or whatever these damn passengers thought.

[Jetsetlemming]

That's a very dumb thing to say Joey. I'd recommend not repeating it anywhere else on the interweb.

[h2orowe]

That's a very dumb thing to say Joey. I'd recommend not repeating it anywhere else on the interweb.
=P I was being sarcastic, but I'll delete it just in case. >_>; Knowing our government I'll be like arrested and raped in Guantanamo bay.

Edit: Just to make things clear I wasn't being serious on that post.

[Fred]

I heard that the Blair and Bush administrations have exaggerated the degree to which the terrorists were ready by a considerable margin. For example, I heard that the terrorists did not have a working prototype of the bomb they were planning to use. Of the 24 or so people initially arrested, they have only had enough evidence to hold onto 11 of them.

[MNJetter]

Different countries use different racial terms. In the UK, "asian" generally refers to people from India and Pakistan, so as the article comes from a British newspaper and the non-terrorists were of Pakistani origin, the writer used the correct term.

You know, now that I think about it, Pakistani wouldn't be thought of as Middle Eastern where I'm from either. I differentiate Indian/Pakistani in my head from Asian and Middle Eastern, but the term that I would use for it is escaping me now.

What do people in the UK call people of mongoloid physical traits, then?

[Ironfrost]

What do people in the UK call people of mongoloid physical traits, then?

On official forms, the only relevant category is "Chinese" - Japanese, Koreans etc just fall into the "Other" category. When people are talking about the whole racial group, they usually say "East Asian" or "Oriental" ("Oriental" isn't considered offensive Britain like it is in the US). Also, a large proportion of the less educated part of the population use "Chinese" as a blanket term for the whole racial group, even for people from Korea or Japan.

[Angelyne]

Not sure if this was posted already, but...

Apparentally it's illegal to wear a shirt with Arabic script (http://parkerstudio.com/AAW/JFK_story.html)

[MNJetter]

Geez, that's stupid (re: arabic shirt bit).

But while it may not be illegal to have a shirt printed in arabic, it is a federal offense to not comply with airline officials. Whether the specific request by airline officials was legal or not depends on whether it was the TSA (i.e., government) doing it, which would be a breach of free speech, or the airline itself (i.e., private company, not specifically bound by the bill of rights).

It's poor business practice to change the dress code for individual customers, but the worst the airline could get for it would be a slap on the wrist for not posting it as policy. And heaven help them if anti-discrimination folks ever got wind of them making it an official policy.

Mr. Jarrar has the legal right to wear that T-shirt at home and in public domain. But a private business is not considered to be public domain. It is indeed a problem, a question of linguistic discrimination, which does fall under the set of laws that businesses are bound by. The airline shouldn't have done that. But it has nothing to do with the bill of rights unless it was the TSA, and not the airline, that made the request.

When people are talking about the whole racial group, they usually say "East Asian" or "Oriental" ("Oriental" isn't considered offensive Britain like it is in the US).

Maybe that's where my confusion came in. "Asian" in America is understood to be a shortening of "East Asian," not a different racial term. Oriental isn't exactly offensive, in my understanding.....just archaic and outdated. It's something that your great-grandmother says when speaking of carpets and spices. :P

[Pierrot le Fou]

Airlines are a semi-public resource, to make things even more complex.

[Plekto]

Actually, they aren't. See, you pay money for the privelege of riding on their airline. They technically can kick anyone they want off of a flight(though they have to reimburse you of course) and going to the media is about your only recourse.

Until now, the companies have been loathe to get in the media spotlight. But now, it might as well be 1955 all over again. The same people are at it again - and denying services to anyone they don't like is just the start of it.

Sucks, but that's how it is. So #1 rule of flying is always go ultra-squeeky and ultra-low key. If you want to make a political statement, take the train - they don't even check your luggage - nobody at all cares by comparison.

[Beowulf]

Airlines are the more closely scrutinized then any form of transportation. Boat, no search, no profiling, no worrys. Trains, the same. Busses, do you want to sit next to the arab or the crazy guy who smells of pickles?

[Bagpuss]

So what possible reason could they have to speak a foreign tongue on a plane full of English people on their way home from a holiday?


I'm sorry - you're actually suggesting that people should only speak English on planes now?!

And btw - Middle Eastern languages also include Farsi, Aramaic, Kurdish, Armenian and Hebrew (amongst others).

[Pierrot le Fou]

Actually, they aren't. See, you pay money for the privelege of riding on their airline. They technically can kick anyone they want off of a flight(though they have to reimburse you of course) and going to the media is about your only recourse.

Until now, the companies have been loathe to get in the media spotlight. But now, it might as well be 1955 all over again. The same people are at it again - and denying services to anyone they don't like is just the start of it.

Sucks, but that's how it is. So #1 rule of flying is always go ultra-squeeky and ultra-low key. If you want to make a political statement, take the train - they don't even check your luggage - nobody at all cares by comparison.
Airlines are semi-public services. They receive huge subsidies, follow special rules, are required to abide by guidelines no other industry has, etc.

They are not simple private industries.

[MNJetter]

They're not Congress, though. And the amendment about free speech in the Bill of Rights specifically starts with "Congress shall make no law...."

Not that free speech is a bad thing, or what the airline did is a good thing. I just don't think it's quite a first-amendment issue. It's a discrimination issue (which is also a constitutional amendment). Not his right to wear the T-shirt, but the airline's mistake in singling him out for a special dress code.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'm simply trying to point out that regarding airports and airlines as private entities, and acting as if laws regarding private companies apply to them to a tee is going to get you in trouble most likely.

[MNJetter]

The same could be said for assuming that the basic Bill of Rights applies to all companies and organizations, instead of just to congress.

And even if it's government-supported (so are farms, btw), the laws that apply to businesses do apply "to a tee." It's just that, with airlines, a few more laws apply as well, because the government is officially involved.

[Trump]

Free speech does not apply to clothing. How else can public schools enforce a dress code?

[Beowulf]

Free speech does not apply to clothing. How else can public schools enforce a dress code?
Actually yes it does. Schools don't have to enforce several ammendments due to the fact that students have "limited rights" while in school.

[Jetsetlemming]

Actually yes it does. Schools don't have to enforce several ammendments due to the fact that students have "limited rights" while in school.
Screaming swear words is even more "speech", and that'll get you in loads of trouble. Even if you say them at normal volume, in fact.



...not speaking from experience. >_>



....But only because I had the cool teachers that were lax on punishing swearing. :D I'm foul mouthed!

[Plekto]

The thing is that while they may not have the rights technically, the pendulum has swung so far to the extreme of being pro-business and well, essentially neo-fascist, that they can now do whatever they want.

Btw - that's what Fascism is.
From Wikipedia:
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism, or socialism.

It has nothing to do with socialist practices 90% of the time. It's all about government and corporate power, mixed with nationalism. Usually it has an imperialistic component to it as well. Most major mations of the world have gone through this stage at sometime, and the U.S. is definately there now. That definition describes our leadership's views almost exactly, in fact.

So, yes - airlines are public. Too bad it doesn't matter and they make the rules as they see fit. Keep your head down and don't stick out until our society gets back to normal.

[Trump]

Note, Wiki is not always correct. Well, actually the definition you provided while correct, is so vague that is not useful at all. It says fascism contains elements of a 8 different -isms while not explaining which parts it draws from. You think that's the important part maybe?

Here is a simple definition with italics around for the key phrase: Fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

The US government is NOT fascist. While the government may overreact and create stupid laws the same could be said about any government in the world.

[chad mullet]

I'm sorry - you're actually suggesting that people should only speak English on planes now?!

And btw - Middle Eastern languages also include Farsi, Aramaic, Kurdish, Armenian and Hebrew (amongst others).


NO - I'm suggesting that these two men, who speak English as a FIRST language, being born and educated here, were deliberately trying to cause fear and alarm on a plane full of English holidaymakers by speaking in the native language of their Pakistani parents.

On your second point - what have the languages of the Middle East got to do with this incident? Pakistan is not in the Middle East and in any case both men are British.

[Kass]

You don't know that English is their first language. If some other language is the primary language spoken in their home by their parents then that is their first language and English is secondary. You're primary language is the one spoken in the home, not the language of the country someone is born in. We have second and third generation Mexican, South American and Asian immigrants in America who still use soemthing other than English as their primary language. That would be why the registration paperwork for public schools in may areas is available in about a dozen different languages.

No one, especially not you, have the right to tell anyone they cannot speak the language of their parents or whatever language they want to speak. If I feel like getting on a plane and speaking French to my daughter I can. If I spoke Farsi, I'd speak to her in Farsi, American or not. If I get a wild hair in my head to speak Pakistani from now on, there is not a damned thing you or any govenment can do about it.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The same could be said for assuming that the basic Bill of Rights applies to all companies and organizations, instead of just to congress.

And even if it's government-supported (so are farms, btw), the laws that apply to businesses do apply "to a tee." It's just that, with airlines, a few more laws apply as well, because the government is officially involved.
Let me try to dumb this down since I seem to be making things too complex by calling airlines 'semi-public.'

Private industry has to generate enough capital to get into business, and either drum up business, profit, or produce popular stock on the basis of future profit or business, or go under.

Public services have to exist and are subsidized to exist. Their popularity, profit-bearing potential, or market-share do not really come into the equation because they are not intended to support themselves. If they need more money, taxes get raised, distribution changes, or public services are cut.

Businesses gain more with popularity. Services cost more with popularity.

Airlines are in the gap between the two. They are run like businesses, but treated in many respects like public services. Air travel is considered a public service which is why ticket prices do not correspond to actual cost (the same way tolls on national toll roads don't tend to correspond to the actual cost of maintaining them, or the amount it costs to send a letter in comparison to the actual cost).

Airlines are subjected to things that would NEVER be allowed to happen in private industry without a warrant -- free sharing of passenger manifests (read: customer lists and details), untold authority by the government to control your business (imagine the National Guard marching in to a GM dealership and telling all customers to remain calm, telling all salespeople to cease all sales, and monitoring the sales floor with semi-automatic rifles while they search and check the credentials of each person leaving the dealership), etc.

They are NOT fully private businesses. They cannot operate under the principle that other businesses do -- profit. They have to ask the government if they want to make serious business decisions, they have to inform the government before being allowed to declare bankruptcy, etc. Can you imagine your local breakfast diner telling the government that they can't meet payroll for the 40th straight week, and asking the government if it's okay that they declare bankruptcy before doing it?

[chad mullet]

You don't know that English is their first language. If some other language is the primary language spoken in their home by their parents then that is their first language and English is secondary. You're primary language is the one spoken in the home, not the language of the country someone is born in. We have second and third generation Mexican, South American and Asian immigrants in America who still use soemthing other than English as their primary language. That would be why the registration paperwork for public schools in may areas is available in about a dozen different languages.

No one, especially not you, have the right to tell anyone they cannot speak the language of their parents or whatever language they want to speak. If I feel like getting on a plane and speaking French to my daughter I can. If Ispoke Farsi, I'd speak to her in Farsi, American or not. If I get a wild hair in my head to speak Pakistani from now on, there is not a damned thing you or any govenment can do about it.


Well I watched them on a BBC interview last week and they spoke English FAR better than most Americans.[or Scotsmen]

Here in the West of Scotland there are many young men and women of Pakistani descent but British birth. I have known several - among their own age group they use English ,i.e. the language of their common culture, and use their parents language when with that older generation.

As for your reference to various immigrant groups in the USA -let's see how
you regard the sanctity of their various languages if they ever start blowing themselves up on subway trains - the guys who did that last year were British born men of Pakistani origin - hence the suspicions of the people on the plane.

I very much doubt that you will be able to speak "Pakistani" anywhere as there is no such language - most folk there speak Urdu.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The point, Chad, is that these people may use English in a wider group because their home language dialects or whatnot may be different, but they are native speakers of a language OTHER than English, even if they are fluent in English. To suggest that they are suspicious because they are speaking something other than English, or to suggest that there's something wrong with speaking a language other than English, is missing the point that Kass is making.

[Plekto]

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

How many fit the U.S. currently? It used to be six a decade ago. Now, it's 11 or 12. #8 and #11 are all that are left relatively untouched.

#5, rampant sexism, is debateable, but in light of how huge an issue they make Gay Marriage and simmilar issues, like how the government sees itself as more valid than the parent in making decisions - it's easily halfway there.

#8 is - well, they are trying hard to get as much religion as possible - so it's maybe 1/3 the way there(still solidly less religous as it should be). Thankfully every so often someone liek Mr. Robertson makes an ass of himself and sets their work back a few steps.

#11 is pretty much untouched - they are currently co-opting the intelectuals to serve as "experts" and so on, or they are ignored by the media. Easier to marginalize them due to their close ties to the media.

[Trump]

Plekto, that is absurd.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - So what? Every country with even a remote amount of pride in their nation is nationalistic.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Disdain? No. There are certain parties who want limitations in public places, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the government as a whole refuses to allow human rights.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - OK, you got one.
4. Supremacy of the Military - While fascist regimes focus on military, so to many other regimes. And quite honestly, military spending keep this country's economy strong so is this really a bad thing?
5. Rampant Sexism - Absolutely not
6. Controlled Mass Media - Not government controlled.
7. Obsession with National Security - You are up to two
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Absolutely not
9. Corporate Power is Protected - Perhaps. This is a very grey area. You really can't prove anything although corporations give the government a lot of money. On the other hand, the government also goes after corporations like Microsoft.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - We still have unions and they still have rights. This is not true.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Absolutely not
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Police are given a little leeway but not to the extent implied by this one. So another no.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - So one branch of the government is run by a family... *who got elected*. This is trying to imply the ENTIRE government is run by a single group who controlls all access. Again, you are full of shit.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Again, debatable. No proof and everything seems ok to me.

I don't know about you, but I only counted 4? 6 if you stretch it really hard. You can try to bend words to your purpose all you want or you can look at the meaning behind them.

Just another note, this list is more of a hypothesis than a check list. Don't try to use it as one.

[Plekto]

Plekto, that is absurd.
You have to be kidding. Stop watching Fox News and CNN. It's pure propaganda.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - So what? Every country with even a remote amount of pride in their nation is nationalistic.
Japan has virtually none. Sweden and Switzerland either. When the media and people get to the point where even questioning what we are doing is met with hostility, I think it qualifies.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Disdain? No. There are certain parties who want limitations in public places, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the government as a whole refuses to allow human rights.
Guantanimo? Our enlightened leader's signing statements saying he doesn't have to obey our own laws against torture? Our leaders saying that the Geneva Convnetions are useless. In a decade we went from a pretty good proponent of human rights to as bad as any dictatorship.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - OK, you got one.
4. Supremacy of the Military - While fascist regimes focus on military, so to many other regimes. And quite honestly, military spending keep this country's economy strong so is this really a bad thing?
We have a big enough army to police the planet AND invade and take over two countries. We have the biggest military on the planet. We definately have this one. Oh - and we invade other countries routinely with it.
5. Rampant Sexism - Absolutely not
6. Controlled Mass Media - Not government controlled.
I did mention that #5 was debateable, otoh, I give us 2 years beefore RowV Wade is overturned. Then watch how many people consider this one to be valid.
7. Obsession with National Security - You are up to two
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Absolutely not
#8 I also said didn't thankfully apply, but they are trying.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - Perhaps. This is a very grey area.
There is absolutely no question. Our nation's anti-trust laws haven't been invoked ONCE in the last 20 years. Both political parties are in this together.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - We still have unions and they still have rights. This is not true.
They aren't physically supressed but they aren't supported - and anti-union practices are given a pass.(corporate power/labor power are opposites - so when one is crazty strong the other isn't) When Wal-Mart has a union get back to me.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Absolutely no
I mentioned this as not being true, either.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Police are given a little leeway but not to the extent implied by this one.
Rock-time again. How about New York making it essentially illegal for people to protest? Largest prisoner population in the world. Corruption at all levels. Our government taking people away for questioning without access to a lawyer...
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - So one branch of the government is run by a family... *
Seriously - look again. Haliburton? The fact that 90% of Bush's government is made up of close friends and business partners? But this isn't just him - it happened with Clinton as well. He was just better at hiding it.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Again, debatable. No proof and everything seems ok to me.
Trust me - it's fradulent. "Everything seems okay to me" pretty much sums up your outlook. Let's face it - there is massive evidence that our elections aren't close to fair, and our government's involvement in Mexico's recent election - essentially rigging it - it's no stretch at all. But let's see what the next election shows. I think all doubt will be gone then.


The thing about Fascism is that it is slow and insidious. That Bush was admonished last week and I quote "We have no hereditary kings in America" by a judge - in response to his thinking he is above all of our laws... Even Regan or FDR wasn't that nuts. The litmus test should be whether or not those areas are threatened. We shouldn't have ANY police-state symptoms. We shouldn't have ANY human rights issues.

Oh - and the list is written by a scholar who is smarter than most of us put together. I think it's a valid one.

[Trump]

You have VERY flawed logic. Fascism implies those trends. That does NOT mean those trends imply fascism.

Also, about #13 (I'll just comment on this one to keep my post under a page, I hate hate hate long posts). You may be correct in that 1/3 of government is run by Bush. Wow... 1/3. We do have two other branches you know. Most of your logic follows similar trends of ignoring the big picture and focusing on the little details that support your points. There are counter examples for almost every one of your examples. If you want to blow this out of proportion fine, but that is all you are doing.

[MNJetter]

Let me try to dumb this down since I seem to be making things too complex by calling airlines 'semi-public.'

*pats PLF on the head*

Cool down, honey, I know what you're talking about. I know what I'm talking about, too. My father is a director at Northwest Airlines, and trust me, whether the government pulled out right now or decided to regulate the airlines even more, at its heart, it's a business.

And in case you never noticed, I wasn't precisely disagreeing with you in the first place. In fact, my last post more or less agreed with everything you said, just adding something on that I felt was important to mention. I agree with you 100% that airlines are semi-public. I think it's a little more than 50/50 on the business end, but I'm not as much of an expert as you make yourself out to be.

I was just saying that they are not congress, which is why the Bill of Rights doesn't precisely apply. They are helped and supported by the government, but they are not a government-run organization. President Bush himself could be standing at the security gates telling people to take their shoes off at the metal detector, and it still wouldn't be a government-run organization.

And all businesses have to essentially ask the government before declaring chapter 7 bankruptcy, not just airlines. Chapter 11 is the one where you basically raise the white flag and liquidate all your assets. Chapter 7 is the one where you ask the government for help, and sit under their protection until you can stand on your own two feet.



Plekto, some of what you have is all right, but I have to point out a couple things......

#1 (nationalism): Japan does too have rampant nationalism. Have you even been here? I mean, the American government might be hugely on the nationalistic side, but the Japanese people are way more nationalistic than the American people are. I mean, look at the Americans on this forum, what with the Bush-bashing (as fun as it is :D) and the frustration and the other comments. Not that Americans aren't nationalist. But I almost laughed out loud when you claimed that Japan has almost no nationalism.

#9 (corporations): You said that anti-trust laws haven't been invoked in 20 years. I might be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the government requiring Bill Gates to split up his company count as invoking anti-trust laws?

Otherwise, what you said is arguably pretty much true, so I won't touch it.

[Plekto]

The judge didn't go through with it - so the law wasn't actually enforced.

All they do is raise the issue and threaten a bit from time to time. But nothing actually happens. It's very standard practice in top-heavy orginizations to make it seem like you care and are doing the right thing as you go on with your plans.

As for Japan - yes - they are as a *people* nationalistic, but their government is anything but. Hell, that they should even worry over whether to visit that shrine or not is laughable. They should do it every year and tell the other nations to shut up - it's their war memorial, afterall. But I don't think there's a term for "piss off" in polite Japanese. ;)

Our leaders are corrupt, through and through. Party affiliation makes little difference, either.

[MNJetter]

But I don't think there's a term for "piss off" in polite Japanese.
Neither is there in polite English. But you can certainly get that effect if you use levels of Japanese other than polite. :D

And I disagree that the government is not nationalistic. Any government whose education ministry worries that their schools are not adequately teaching their youth to "love their country" is pretty nationalistic in my book.

I agree about the corruption, more or less. Still hesitate to call it fascist, though. Corruption is not a synonym for the word, and we still have elections that work on a non-presidential level.

[Kass]

There is absolutely no question. Our nation's anti-trust laws haven't been invoked ONCE in the last 20 years. Both political parties are in this together.


You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The Federal Trade Commission investigates, monitors and files cases against companies every day for a variety of regulatory offenses, including the anti-trust laws. As somone else pointed out, the Microsoft case was one of the more notable prosecutions in recent history.

What you are so ill-informed about is what the anti-trust laws actually do. The are in a very small part, punitive after the fact. Mostly, they are preventative. Businesses worth more than a certain value must file pre-merger clearance applications with the FTC to ensure that the mergers and acquisitions do not create anti-trust violations, etc. I spent the better part of three years working on the development of a system to convert those filings to electronic format and not paper.

The AOL-Time Warner merger was one of the more massive pre-merger cases that people will remember. I and my co-workers knew about that one long before the public. We are prohibited from investing in any company with an active anything at the FTC. I have friends who work at AOL, so I had to file an official disclosure of all my contacts there.

The FTC monitors compliance of anti-trust laws so that the punitive measures need not be enacted.

It also maintains massive databases of consumer complaints, investigates those complaints for any number of violations from truth in advertising to fair debt collection and credit reporting to anti-trust violations.

The FTC investigations are secret. Because the investigations involve information such as trade secrets and company financial records that are NOT public knowledge and protected by law, the investigations are not disclosed to the public. Such investigations, even if they prove to be baseless, could put companies out of business or lower their stock price beyond repair if the information was released prematurely. Stocks are speculative and even the rumor that there is a rumor about a company tanks its stock value. The government cannot do more harm than good in its investigations. I had to have a background check and security clearance to work there.

The Microsoft case was leaked ( *cough*by DOJ*cough* ). Anti-trust jurisdiction is shared by DOJ and FTC. When a high profile case comes along, they squabble over who gets it. The leak helped the better know agency win the jurisdiction issue. If it gets big, one agency take the lead. DOJ won that squabble and literally made a federal case of it right as the FTC was nearly done negotiating a settlement with Microsoft that did a lot of what the court case did without the waste of tax money.

You are flat out, completely wrong about the Microsoft case. The judge DID render a verdict and the government and Microsoft negotiated a settlement that was eventually (after a few failed proposals) approved by the judge. Microsoft is under constant monitoring to ensure that they comply with every aspect of the settlement.

Resolutions to these issues are almost always negotiated to the satisfaction of the complainant and the governement and never make the news. No one cares that yet another merger cleared DOJ and FTC review and will go forward. No one cares that Mom and Pop Shop received $50,000 from National Grocery Store Inc. for compensation for violations of some minor anti-trust rule.

Investigations also involve MASSIVE seizures of documents and information. I've seen documentation from a single investigation fill up an entire floor of a downtown DC office building. We're talking ten and twenty thousand boxes of paper plus seized computer files. No company is exempt, from oil companies to Microsoft to AOL to Oracle to whomever.

Next time, have an inkling of what you are talking about.

[Jetsetlemming]

pwned. :P I really get annoyed when people start throwing out stuff like that, repeating the arguments of other dumbasses who stole them from other dumbasses over the internet. I actually laughed out loud when I hit this:

Trust me

[Trump]

Yeah, I got a good chuckle when I saw "Trust me" was the counter argument to "It is debatable, there is no proof." The flood of counter examples will continue I'm sure.

[Ichisan]

Free speech does not apply to clothing. How else can public schools enforce a dress code?
Actually yes it does. Schools don't have to enforce several ammendments due to the fact that students have "limited rights" while in school.

I'd like to see the government try to get us all to wear a state uniform! :cop:

[Plekto]

Sure, they do all of that - but when was the last time you actually saw the two main things the laws are supposed to be enforcing happen, namely, breaking up monopolies(Microsoft managing to talk its way out of it with a slap on the wrist barely counts) or more importantly, keeping mergers from happening?

Not even close to what it was 20 years ago. Maybe a handful - otherwise, it's grease the politician's palms and everyone looks the other way.

Take the recent buyout of ISS by IBM. That should have raised flags - shoot, ISS buying out so many of its competitors should have way before that. We have segments of the economy that are controlled by just a couple of mega-corporations and nothing happens.

My original point, though, was how our government panders to big business. That much is obvious.

Look - we're not Facist *yet*, but we are definately showing the same signs that say, Germany did in the late 20s. Every month we slide a little closer to that edge, deny a few more rights, and become a bit less tolerant of freedom. It's going in the wrong way. I mean - do we REALLY want to be back in the 1950s again with McCarthy-sque hearings and a frightened population doing evacutation drills in school?

[Trump]

You know, last time I checked a monopoly was not the same as a couple mega-corporations. And really, it isn't just about there being more than one company, the spirit of the law strives to make sure companies in that position do not abuse their power with things like price fixing and special deals to maintain their control over the market (integrating IE into windows with special IE only web commands, etc). I work in the defense industry and there are only a few big players. But they are fiercely competitive (in their bloated government contractor way). Bids on contracts are taken very seriously because even though there are only 2 others competing, millions of dollars are at stake. Furthermore, there are strict guidlines in place to make sure that laws aren't broken and companies don't get sued. There was an entire hour long seminar on what type of gifts are allowed, and I hardly ever deal with people outside my cube.

And another thing, why shouldn't corporations have a say in government actions? They do pay a large share of taxes and it isn't like they get to vote (as a corporation). Do you really think that the ones who abuse their links in the government don't get caught? Just 2-3 years ago there was a high up government official who got Boeing a big contract. Shortly afterwards Boeing hired that person and there was a BIG deal that cost Boeing tons of money. The big corporations and other political parties are terribly quick to jump on any wrongdoing by their competition which makes it hard to slip things by quietly.

We aren't facist, and we won't ever be unless the people want it to be. You seem so convinced that it will happen but I can't find any real justification beyond irrational paranoia based on incomplete information and halfbaked theories. There is so much more going on than you even realize. Furthermore, you seem to forget that people have a say in government. When they don't like the current leadership you can look for it to change with the next election.

[Pierrot le Fou]

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

How many fit Japan currently?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Check. Ever seen a Japanese international sporting event? Or a school? Did you know that teachers have been docked pay and suspended for not singing the national anthem at school assemblies because it may make the children think that a lack of patriotism is okay?

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Despite signing the International Charter on Human Rights, Japan still refuses to adopt any laws preventing discrimination on the base of race or nationality. Foreign workers can be denied rights because they aren't Japanese. Foreigners of Japanese descent, on the other hand, are often granted a sort of 'right of return.' Alberto Fujimori (ex-President of Peru), for instance.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

China? North Korea? Russia? The abduction issue? The governor of Tokyo saying that if there is a major earthquake, the Koreans will start looting? Previously mentioned lack of laws preventing discrimination?

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

The Japanese SDF is given a disproportionate amount of funding in comparison to other militaries across the world. They spent almost $45 billion US in fiscal 2005 for their military which can't even be used for offense. Despite their huge claims of pacifism, they have the 4th highest military budget in the world, and a prime minister who visits a shrine honouring class A war criminals every year.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

Do I really need to comment on this? Everything save the abortion issue is pretty-much spot-on there. Women command pitiful salaries. Sexual harrassment is commonplace. A woman's duty is to her husband. A husband's duty is to provide for his family. Women in politics are a rarity and a spectacle, rather than generally being taken seriously.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

The mass media in Japan is so regulated it aches. Newspapers all claim impartiality, by calling suspects 'suspects' and refusing to show them in handcuffs (mosaic'ing them out) to show that they are not pre-judging them, right before writing thousands of slanderous articles about how guilty they are. But I'm sure this is all unrelated to the 99% conviction rate.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Monthly terrorism drills. Reminders of the North Korean nuclear threat. Constant fear of earthquakes, disasters, and everything else.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Not so much. 70% of Japanese are Shinto, 70% Buddhist, and 70% non-religious. Religion and tradition are intertwined, which can either be pro this point or against this point depending on your view of religion. Probably not so much though.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

No brainer.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Another no brainer.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

Famous Japanese artists in the current era: ...?

Can you name one?

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

99% conviction rate.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Amakudari. Retired public servants who fix contracts, have unheard of amounts of pull, and who fleece normal people to line their pockets, without recourse. See pachinko parlors, license centers, immigration fees, etc.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Only in two elections has a party other than the LDP been elected since the current system was established after WWII.

According to your standards, Japan is even MORE facist than the US -- one exception instead of three. In other words, you're a fucking cretin. Go dig your brain out of the refuse pile and re-install it. The inability to apply rational thought does not make you correct, it makes you an idiot.

[MNJetter]

I can name a few Japanese artists, depending on what you define as the "current era"

But I agree 100% that the current Japanese society is pretty anti-conducive to creative thought, and would agree that probably all of the famous genuine artists and musicians and musicians I can think of are probably as talented as they are because they went overseas to study, or were influenced greatly by non-Japanese philosophy.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Which is ironic when you consider that the Japanese fueled much of the impressionist and whatnot movements. But I digress.

The point is that Plekto is a moron.

[Plekto]

You'll notice that those are signs of Fascism. The missing component of course, is the resulting power-grab by those elements and militarization of the country.

Japan has about the same number of signs, to be sure, but they are at maybe 1/4 to 1/2 the level of the U.S.. Tons of small signs are nothing compared to maintining secret detention centers around the globe and invading other nations.(now they want to invade Iran before Bush is out of office, because the person who inherits the mess won't be able to pull out)

I'd say invading two countries without any provication within a decade(Iran will happen, even if they have to manufacture it like they did in Vietnam) is a pretty good sign that things are getting bad. A mess like Katrina would have never happened in Japan, that's for sure. And Japan doesn't have anything like Guantanimo. Oh - it also isn't saying that the Geneva Conventions are "antiquated" and don't apply.

You have to obviously look at the signs and also their severity. Japan is holding pretty much constant over time and slowly imporving. The U.S. is getting worse every couple of months. That should be raising alarm bells in everyone's heads, because the truth is that we are not immune to having it all fall apart on us anymore than Germany or any other nation was in the past.

I will admit, though, that Japan's criminal/justice system is worse than Mexico or even France. Downright apalling, in fact. God help you if you do get arrested, because the places are run almost like POW camps.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Are you fucking nuts? Enforcing the singing of the national anthem? Forcing elected officials to recognize the flag? Introducing 'Patriotism Classes' into the elementary schools with no voluntary out? Actively seeking to reduce individualism? Having all power within the country concentrated in ONE political party?

Are you a fucking nutcase?

Japan is FAR further along the lines of a totalitarian state. Did you hear about the war protestor who was arrested? The huge media scandals? The massive governmental bureaucracy, fraud, and nepotism? Or are you so focused whacking off over the PUBLISHED AND WIDELY DISCUSSED issues in the US that you can't fathom that you've lost complete and total touch with reality?

You have no idea what you're on about. Christ almighty.

[Trump]

That guy is funny. He uses the same arguments to both support and refute his own points.

[Kass]

Sure, they do all of that - but when was the last time you actually saw the two main things the laws are supposed to be enforcing happen, namely, breaking up monopolies(Microsoft managing to talk its way out of it with a slap on the wrist barely counts) or more importantly, keeping mergers from happening?

Not even close to what it was 20 years ago. Maybe a handful - otherwise, it's grease the politician's palms and everyone looks the other way.

Take the recent buyout of ISS by IBM. That should have raised flags - shoot, ISS buying out so many of its competitors should have way before that. We have segments of the economy that are controlled by just a couple of mega-corporations and nothing happens.

My original point, though, was how our government panders to big business. That much is obvious.

Look - we're not Facist *yet*, but we are definately showing the same signs that say, Germany did in the late 20s. Every month we slide a little closer to that edge, deny a few more rights, and become a bit less tolerant of freedom. It's going in the wrong way. I mean - do we REALLY want to be back in the 1950s again with McCarthy-sque hearings and a frightened population doing evacutation drills in school?

Your point was obvious. It was also flat out, plain old wrong. If you even knew one whit about anti-trust laws, you'd know that. Breaking up monopolies is NOT the sole point of the anti-trust laws and preventing mergers NEVER was the point. The point was to ensure that if a monopoly does exist, that it isn't because the competition is unfairly put out of business, and to make sure that when companies do merge, it doesn't create an unfair advantage. There are a ton of monopolies in the business world simply because there is only one company that does what it does.

In order to violate anti-trust laws, they have to SUPPRESS competition, not beat it. There are very specific actions that have to take place and very specific violations of laws. Being good at what you do, being an astute businessman, producing a better product, getting rich and staying in business are NOT violations of those laws.

If Joe Blow is better at making and marketing widgets than Tom Smith and Tom Smith goes out of business, that's just because Tom was a bad widget maker and marketer. It doesn't make Joe Blow a big, bad mean corporate goon who ruthlessly crushed Tom Smith into the ground.

Halliburton and Bechtel have a huge monopoly because they are on the only US companies that do what they do--go out and rebuild infrastructure. They both have billions in government contracts, charge virtually identically and they aren't mortal enemies. They get along quite nicely. Sometimes *gasp* they even work together as contractor and sub-contractor. Effectively they form a monopoly. That doesn't mean the government is going to go in and break them up into a dozen companies. No other US company has come along to even try to compete.

IBM buying a competitor is just business. It isn't like ISS is the only competitor IBM has. More come along everyday and more fail everyday. If they can’t compete for reasons other than unscrupulous tactics as defined by law, then they don’t deserve to stay in business. You don't even know the details of the merger beyond what CNN says, which is effectively nothing. If there was some area where an unfair advantage was created, IBM would not have been permitted to acquire that branch of ISS. It would have been spun off into its own company. That happens every single day. Mergers are almost never blocked in their entirety. That is excessive government interference. They are negotiated. Companies are told to spin off or sell off one branch or another. They are required to sell stock or limited on how much they can sell. Conditions are imposed. The regular course of business is not impeded nor should it be.

The point is not to put companies out of business, which is what you essentially call for in your rail against Microsoft and IBM. If they are such horrible entities, you go out and do better. The simple fact is they make and market their products well. With a few exceptions, their success has been based on innovation, quality and astute business decisions. Microsoft's stock declined somewhat after they were forbidden to enforce bundling of IE and preventing installation of competitive products prior to the sale, BUT the impact on their bottom line was negligible. Even having to deal with competition, they still win. It doesn’t matter if it is because you think the buying public are idiots for using IE. If they want choose through laziness not to pick a better product, oh well.

Microsoft's penalties were hardly slaps on the wrist if you read the WHOLE settlement. But you don't. You read 10 paragraph summaries and hear 30 second sound bites of settlements that take up hundreds of pages. The press kicked and screamed because Microsoft wasn’t deconstructed and driven out of business, and only paid a fine and gave some computers to some schools. What they failed to mention are all the restrictions on how they bundle and market their products, how they deal with their distributors, and how they deal with hardware manufacturers, amongst other requirements.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the economy is driven by business. Real estate, commodities, stocks, technology, farming... It is ALL business. People out to make as much money as they can and stay out of jail while doing so. In the grand scheme of our economy, IBM isn't a gargantuan player.

Oh, and did you miss the part about anti-trust cases being secret until filed in court to prevent destroying businesses NOT convicted of any crimes? You know, it means the government is prevented by law from disclosing those investigations and their outcome unless a court case is filed.

[Kass]

Which is ironic when you consider that the Japanese fueled much of the impressionist and whatnot movements. But I digress.

The point is that Plekto is a moron.

PLF, enough with the name calling. The arguments can be seen for what they are.

[Plekto]

Halliburton and Bechtel have a huge monopoly because they are on the only US companies that do what they do--go out and rebuild infrastructure.
Actually, they are far from it. There were dozens of bidders, but time and time again, they got the contract in a no-bid fashion. Just given to them in direct violation of the law. But nobody goes after them. The problem isn't a *pure* monopoly, it's more of their being okay with it turning into 2-3 companies. Take video cards. Two players. So sorry if you want another option. Now, they do compete against each other, but in many industries they practically hold hands.(Cable TV being one of the most noteable - you have ZERO CHOICE there) Oh sure you could go for satellite, but there are only three choices for 90% of the country. Three. You don't like their rates or plans - sorry - deal with the Cable monopoly. Last I checked, the pricing plans from the three satellite providers are within pennies of each other. It's not really a choice anymore.

IBM buying a competitor is just business. It isn't like ISS is the only competitor IBM has. More come along everyday and more fail everyday. If they can’t compete for reasons other than unscrupulous tactics as defined by law, then they don’t deserve to stay in business. You don't even know the details of the merger beyond what CNN says, which is effectively nothing. If there was some area where an unfair advantage was created, IBM would not have been permitted to acquire that branch of ISS.
Ah - but you see, I used this example specifically because I *do* know what is going on, having friends who work for them. ISS was bought out and it does create an unfair advantage, as IBM will effectively become the 5000 lb gorilla. Not in their field, but ISS's field. With IBM's backing, ISS is going to cripple their competition due to sheer weight and power. They already bought out ZoneLabs and several others in the past couple of years. Now, they effectively own half of the market once this merger goes through. Now, I an't give out specifics, but that's essentially what it boils down to.
And nothing was done - it appears to be a seamless merger. It seems that as long as both companies are happy with it, mergers happen more often than not. Too bad Norton and the rest are effectively facing the same situation Netscape was with IE, now. Like anyone really cares in our government. What they do as a business doesn't really concern me too much, either.
But as a consumer, it worries me greatly. Now if I want a firewall program, I have what - four choices? It used to be dozens. Yet this raises no concerns with the regulators by and large.

What they failed to mention are all the restrictions on how they bundle and market their products, how they deal with their distributors, and how they deal with hardware manufacturers, amongst other requirements.
Which, being what Microsoft SHOULD HAVE DONE ALL ALONG, isn't really a true penalty, is it?

[Trump]

Bringing up the cable industry was the most stupid thing you could have done. The industry is completely unrelated to your argument. Yes, you are right that cable is a monopoly. Because of that it is HIGHLY regulated. Furthermore, have you put any thought into why cable is a monopoly? It is similar to the power company in that there is just so much infrastructure investment required it keeps competitors out of the market. There are BILLIONS of dollars invested in cable lines, satellites, and routing centers. It is terribly difficult to start that up when there is another company already established. But, the government regulations understand that and make sure the prices are reasonable. Do you think Adelphia went bankrupt because they were charging too much, making too much profit? (Well, corrupt leaders aside) Just bringing up cable companies in the same idea as regulating competitive industries shows how little you really understand about the topic.

So how exactly is IBM's weight going to cause monopolistic market tendencies with ISS? Monopolistic would be to start designing their other products to only accept ISS's firewalls. Monopolistic would be to take a loss on ISS's products to force everyone out of business and then jacking prices up higher than before. Monopolistic is NOT leveraging similar products to streamline production and create better products. You still haven't given any other examples of what they are doing wrong except "they are too big". I truly don't care about the size of a company, only about the way they do business.

BTW, I'm not sure your last sentence can be considered English.

[Jetsetlemming]

Take video cards. Two players. So sorry if you want another option.
Ooh, look, another thing you know nothing about. Nvidia and ATI (I'm assuming those are the companies you're referring to) design chipsets. They are not at all the only two companies designing them. I myself have an intel video card. As for producing the cards, there are dozens of companies that use the nvidia or ATI chipset designs to make the cards. Go to newegg, search for video cards, look at the brand names. There are a million. Nvidia and ATI don't stomp out any other business that wants to make a video card. They're just the best. Should we be calling Ageia a monopoly that should be deconstructed for making PPU's? :knockout:

[Kass]

Which, being what Microsoft SHOULD HAVE DONE ALL ALONG, isn't really a true penalty, is it?


Except that the restrictions are beyond what other companies are required to do. No other company has to abide by the new Microsoft-only rules. They are free to bundle their software any way they want, deal with manufacturers and distributors any way they want and market any way they want. Microsoft is the only one who has to play by the more restrictive rules.

I have friends who are execs at AOL. That doesn't mean I or they know the details of the merger because as I have said repeatedly, those details are confidential. Just because you know someone at ISS doesn't mean you know squat. Have they read the merger contract or the FTC/DOJ pre-merger report? Do they know whether or not ISS sold off any assets prior to the merger?

Big and successful is not against the law. That is what businesses are supposed to be if they want to actually stay in business. The owners/board of directors of ISS sold because they could make tons of money. That's the WHOLE FREAKING POINT OF GOING INTO BUSINESS.

[Klilynkun]

just thought i'd drop-by to see how everything is going and i walk into a conversation about microsoft.........from asian non-terrorists to microsoft :meh:

that's imagination baby

*throws water balloon at thread*

[Trump]

Mircrosoft is evil! Oh, sorry =p

[Pierrot le Fou]

Apparently the whole point of business, Kass, is to be labeled big evil corporations seeking to destroy the holy mom and pop shops. How dare they?

[4letterwords]

Im not sure how I would react. Sure from here I sit back and say how ridiculous I find it and how embarrassing it is to think that people are still judging others by how they look... etc. But then I thought about how I would feel if I was sitting with my family and there were people constantly checking their watches, wearing incredibly unusual clothing for the weather, and yes, even with the stereotypical 'terrorist' scruffy facial hair, etc... I realized that even at a SLIGHTLY almost MINISCULE raise in the chance that they COULD MAYBE MIGHT POSSIBLY be terrorists... it would freak me the fuck out.
Fear owns all.

[羽之助]

What are you doing, being on-topic? Fie on thee!