|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Panic Button
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| We must destroy all those who follow that pernicious creed lest they destroy us first. |
So that includes my Auntie, cousins, and quite a few of my friends?
I didn't realise xenophobic hatred of this level was tolerated on a board supposed to be used by people who choose a career which involves cross cultural interaction.
However, since it apparently is, I imagine its perfectly OK for me to call you a c.u.n.t.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevieg4ever
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are you describing the sun, the british media or both because its not quite clear?
Anyways I don�t want to get into a pointless internet messageboard argument but the lowest common denominator in the uk are people whose lives are based around the tv schedules (particularly those true testaments to aesthetics big brother, pop idol and Eastenders), the national lottery, beer consumption, tabloids, fast food, poor imitations of American culture and general lethargy, none of which I adhere to or partake in (not that im trying to boast or anything).
| happeningthang wrote: |
| stevieg4ever wrote: |
| the british media |
Who are perenially described as peurile, racist, jingoistic, homophobic, "right wing", sensationalist, appealing to the lowest common denominator (that's you), offensive and tasteless.
And that's just the Sun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLarter
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, at least the threat level has dropped meaning hand luggage will be allowed from tomorrow onwards.
Good news at least |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevieg4ever
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| at least some normality will be restored but apparently heathrow and gatwick etc are urging travellers still not to bring hand luggage which is ambiguous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLarter
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yep, it's from Tuesday onwards the new restrictions come into force. Only allowed something the size of a laptop case to take on and no liquids allowed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
NEWSFLASH !!!
Both global state authorities & "terrorists" ( where in fact any distinction between the 2 can, or for that matter SHOULD be made ) are said to have known of the potential use of LIQUIDS as WMDs as far back as almost 20 YEARS AGO !!!
QUESTION: WHY NOW? Hmmmmmmmm ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Terrorism Experts Cast Doubt on Qaeda Tie to London Arrests. |
I reckon theres plenty of British muslims al-quaeda wannabees who don't need any links to Bin laden to seek immortality on national news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Lemon wrote:
| Quote: |
If you're going to read anything about this incident, make it this (The Age, Australia). Agree with Gwynne Dyer or not, much of what he writes has the ring of truth, and it's odd more people aren't saying the same thing.
Here's a taste:
| Quote: |
Quote:
Terrorists of various sorts have been in business for about 40 years, and the present crop of Islamist terrorists are especially dangerous since they are willing to kill themselves along with their victims. But in the United States more people die on the roads every single month than Islamist terrorists have killed since the year 2000, and in Britain it's more people every week. Yet neither country has tried to restrict access to cars.
..This is all hype, designed to frighten the British and American publics into supporting the wars of their deeply unpopular governments (and the war of their Israeli ally as well). |
|
So very true. I have been wondering why the UK government has gone and taken this threat to the extreme as i have not heard that the threat was so imminent. If they thought that there was a plot to hide explosives in liquids, they could have simply banned all carry on fluids and electrical items, but that wouldn't have created such fear as what they really wanted to do.
The sad news is, is that the world has not become safer with this war on terrorism. Invading Iraq squandered any chances of any limited success.
And to think that the continued threats or acts of terrorism have nothing to do with the war in Iraq would be totally absurd.
It was Blair who said this about Iraq:
MEDIA ALERT: QUESTIONS FOR TONY BLAIR ON NEWSNIGHT
How, When and Why Tony Blair Decided That Iraq Was a "Real and Unique Threat"
Below we present an analysis detailing the development of Tony Blair's stance on Iraq. It shows quite clearly that Blair's conversion to fearing Iraq as an alleged terrible threat to UK security occurred dramatically about twelve months ago after many years of failing to mention any such threat, and at around the same time that the US decided to go to war.
On Thursday night, Tony Blair will be interviewed by the BBC's Jeremy Paxman: Blair On Iraq - A Newsnight Special (BBC2, 9:00pm, February 6, 2003). At the end of the Alert below, we have provided Paxman's email address and we have suggested possible questions for Blair that you might wish to send to Paxman.
Please take this chance to challenge both Blair and the BBC.
Evolution Of Deceit
In September of last year, Blair was in no doubt whatever about the threat posed by Iraq:
"Iraq poses a real and unique threat to the security of the region and the rest of the world..." ('Blair: Saddam has to go, Dossier on Iraqi threat to be published', Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, September 4, 2002)
In a recent interview for ITN News, Blair even implied that Saddam bears comparison with Hitler:
"What does the whole of our history teach us, I mean British history in particular? That if when you're faced with a threat you decide to avoid confronting it short term, then all that happens is that in the longer term you have to confront it and confront it an even more deadly form." (ITN News at 6:30, January 31, 2003)
And yet, according to the Guardian/Observer, in 1998, Blair had next to nothing to say about the threat posed by Iraq. In December 1998, for example, Blair branded the Iraqi president as merely a "serial breaker of promises" as he justified the launch of a joint US-British strike to "degrade" Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ('Missile blitz on Iraq', Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, the Guardian, December 17, 1998)
Three days of air strikes were deemed sufficient to degrade those weapons and so to keep Saddam 'in his box'.
Throughout 1999, Blair had similarly little to say about Iraq.
In 2000, the Guardian/Observer record next to no fears of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, or of its supposed links to terrorism. Iraq was merely one of several "rogue states", not yet "a real and unique threat".
Likewise, in February 2001, the UK Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, and then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, justified a further series of bombing raids against Baghdad. Hoon and Cook made no mention of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the Observer reported, "the strikes were necessary to eliminate a threat to the planes patrolling the 'no-fly zones' in the north and south of Iraq." ('Bush signals a deadly intent, Jason Burke and Ed Vulliamy, The Observer, February 18, 2001)
Blair described the raids against air defence systems as a "limited operation with the sole purpose of defending... pilots". They would stop, he said, "if Saddam stopped attacking us. But as long as he does, I will... protect our forces and prevent Saddam from... wreaking havoc, suffering and death". ('Blair and Bush defy world fury', Jason Burke, Kamal Ahmed and Ed Vulliamy, The Observer, February 18, 2001)
Again, this was deemed sufficient - no massive air assault and no invasion were required at a time when, unlike now, inspectors were not on the ground in Iraq and so the level of any threat was presumably far less clear.
Crucially, even after September 11, Blair maintained the same approach. In October 2001 - just months ago - Blair's official spokesman dismissed suggestions that splits were developing between the UK and the US over whether military action should be extended to Iraq:
"Such an extension was being proposed only by 'fringe voices' in the US", Blair's spokesman said. ('Blair: we know the game you are playing', Matthew Tempest, The Guardian, October 11, 2001)
Later that month, when asked if there would be a "wider war" against Iraq after the attack on Afghanistan, Blair answered that this would depend on proof of Iraqi complicity in the September 11 attacks:
"I think what people need before we take action against anyone is evidence." ('Blair on the war: the Observer interview in full', The Observer, October 14, 2001)
That same month Blair talked of the need for "absolute evidence" of Iraqi complicity. (Michael White, 'Blair goes public to quell Arab fears of wider war', The Guardian, October 11, 2001)
One month later, the Guardian reported how Tony Blair was literally standing shoulder to shoulder with President Jacques Chirac of France - now the bete noire of UK warmongers - as they spoke to the press and "reaffirmed their demand for 'incontrovertible evidence' of Iraqi complicity in the attacks on America before they could endorse US threats to extend the anti-terrorist campaign to Baghdad." ('Blair and Chirac cool on taking war to Iraq,' Hugo Young and Michael White, The Guardian, November 30, 2001)
Can it be possible that this was the same Blair who, a little more than one year later, is telling us that Iraq is and always has been "a real and unique threat" to UK security, with no mention whatever of the need for evidence of Iraqi complicity in the September 11 attacks?
Significantly, a few days after the press announced "Blair and Chirac cool on taking war to Iraq", an article appeared in the Observer titled, 'Secret US plan for Iraq war'. Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver reported:
"America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt... The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'." (The Observer, December 2, 2001)
A European military source who had recently returned from US military chiefs responsible for the plan said:
"The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it."
This was December 2. By February 28, referring to rogue states in general, Blair said it was "important that we act against them". Then Blair turned to Iraq:
"We do constantly look at Iraq ... Saddam Hussein's regime is a regime that is deeply repressive to its people and is a real danger to the region.
"Heavens above, he used chemical weapons against his own people, so it is an issue and we have got to look at it, but we will look at it in a rational and calm way, as we have for the other issues.
"The accumulation of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq poses a threat, a threat not just to the region but to the wider world, and I think George Bush was absolutely right to raise it. Now what action we take in respect of that, that is an open matter for discussion..." ('Blair edges closer to Iraqi strike', Matthew Tempest, The Guardian, February 28, 2002)
Blair said:
"It is an issue that those who are engaged in spreading weapons of mass destruction are engaged in an evil trade and it is important that we make sure that we take action in respect of it." (Ibid)
The propaganda campaign had begun. By September 2002, Blair was in warmongering overdrive, saying he would publish an arms dossier on Iraq. Once it was published, he said, "people will see there is no doubt at all that UN resolutions have been breached." ('Blair: Saddam has to go, Dossier on Iraqi threat to be published', Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, September 4, 2002)
Unfortunately for Blair, there is now no doubt that UN inspectors have visited all the sites mentioned in his dossier and have "not found 'any signs' of weapons of mass destruction". ('Scepticism over papers detailing chemical warfare preparations', Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, January 25, 2003)
Consider all of the above and then the fact that Blair can nevertheless recently declare on national television:
"I'm here to argue for the position I've always argued for, and I've raised this issue of weapons of mass destruction for ages. And so it's not a question of George Bush wanting to do this or anyone else wanting to do it; I believe it is necessary in the interests of this country, and it is only when we deal with these threats that we will usher in a greater sense of order and stability in the world." (ITN News at 6:30, January 31, 2003)
Blair, in fact, has been raising this issue for about 12 months. The Guardian/Observer - faithful scribes of Blair's views - record (as of February 3, 2003) the following mentions of the words 'Blair and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction' for the following years:
For more good reading check this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yet neither country has tried to restrict access to cars.
|
No - young age driving restrictions, old age driving restrictions, sobriety indicators mounted on steering wheels. There are restrictions.
| Quote: |
And to think that the continued threats or acts of terrorism have nothing to do with the war in Iraq would be totally absurd.
|
Causes attributed to The Iraq War are pretence. Mulsims get a kick out of terrorism and subjegation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, at least the threat level has dropped meaning hand luggage will be allowed from tomorrow onwards.
Good news at least |
Living in a Democracy is just so special huh? Gosh, what next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Death by old age kills more poeple that Islamic-Nazi terrorism. The evidence shown by Gitmo et al that the West did not try outlaw death by old age first before discriminating against Muslims is proof enough of racism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
career which involves cross cultural interaction.
|
Cross cultural interaction is not cross cultural abuse.
Westerners teaching English skills for a fair wage in a healthy economy is not the same as a million plus Muslims on welfare, causing rape epidemics, blackmailing locals with bomb threats and speaking openly about conquest are not the same.
It is genuinely slimey for brown people to perform dastardly acts and then hide behind accusations of racism when caught red handed. It is a valid reason to not want them around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw a video recently that said that 100,000 Americans die each year because of pharmaceuticals. Yet no one is trying to erradicate Pfizer.
http://garynull.com/dvd.html
go to the above link, then click on "wake up and get healthy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
I saw a video recently that said that 100,000 Americans die each year because of pharmaceuticals.
Yet no one is trying to erradicate Pfizer.
http://garynull.com/dvd.html
go to the above link, then click on "wake up and get healthy". |
I betcha the numbers are even higher than that!
PFIZER & ELI LILLY ARE GOD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevieg4ever
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| this is just a test to see if my signature comes up - i hope i dont offend anyone's religious sensitivities with it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
