# Passenger tries to open door midflight: Terrorist?



## billc (May 8, 2011)

A flight to chicago was disrupted when a male passenger got up out of his seat, ran to the door of the jet and tried to open it.  He was subdued by a passenger, a former special forces soldier and martial artist, who works in private security.

****What was the passengers name?  The news story on ABC news did not report the mans name, however, the passenger who subdued the man had the guys picture on his cell phone.  What is the guys name?  Officials are saying there is no connection to terrorism, but is this a case of "nothing to see here, just move along" when in fact it was an act of terrorism?  What is the guys name?*****


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A flight to chicago was disrupted when a male passenger got up out of his seat, ran to the door of the jet and tried to open it.  He was subdued by a passenger, a former special forces soldier and martial artist, who works in private security.
> 
> ****What was the passengers name?  The news story on ABC news did not report the mans name, however, the passenger who subdued the man had the guys picture on his cell phone.  What is the guys name?  Officials are saying there is no connection to terrorism, but is this a case of "nothing to see here, just move along" when in fact it was an act of terrorism?  What is the guys name?*****


You are just dying for a Arabic sounding name; aren't you? LOL
It could be a Twilight Zone, "There is a man on the wing!" Kind of thing... even if his name isn't Dave.
Sean


----------



## billc (May 8, 2011)

Did you see the mans photo, the feds didn't think to confiscate the ex special forces guys camera.  He had to choke the guy out twice to keep him down.  Would it be a surprise after bin laden is killed to have someone try to bring down a plane?  Of course the guy didn't do his homework because apparently you can't open the doors when the cabin is pressurized.


----------



## WC_lun (May 8, 2011)

This type of thing has happened in the past and wasn't related to terrorism, but rather an unbalanced mind.  Are you saying that if it was some white guy named Joe Smith it naturally was just some disturbed individual, but if his name was Saed Mohamad he was naturally a terrorist?


----------



## billc (May 8, 2011)

I think a closer look at the situation would be warrented don't you?  Especially after the death of bin laden?


----------



## WC_lun (May 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I think a closer look at the situation would be warrented don't you? Especially after the death of bin laden?


 
No, I really don't think it deserves a second look if you are basing your decision of terrorism on if the person had an Arabic name.  This is nothing more than fear mongering.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

Well, could be a terrorist action.

Could also be attention seekers, suicidal idiots, copy cats etc.

I mean, lets see....
about 100 letters have arrives all around the US, carrying white powder (been done)
2 dozen + bomb threats have been called in. So far, no kabooms.
Some schools were closed early for threats.
half dozen planes were diverted, delayed, emptied and searched after notes were found or other suspicious behavior occurred.  No bombs, weapons, etc found. A miracle given the lax nature of the TSA.
this week a plane lands after an idiot tried to open the door.  people now panic. 2 weeks ago another guy got into it with an attendant, plane lands and he goes away in handcuffs, no one even blinks.
Etc.

There's being alert and aware, and then there's paniced frantic "I gotta pin it on the muslims, it's gotta be them, can't be anyone else, white guys don't do this, no sir, gotta be a towel wearing backward stinky muslim."

Paranoia.  Such an entertaining thing to watch.

Course, now that I've made fun of the whole thing, FOX will post a picture of Abdul Bin KaBlewy, and a link to his "Deth too Amerika!" blog I'm sure.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A flight to chicago was disrupted when a male passenger got up out of his seat, ran to the door of the jet and tried to open it.  He was subdued by a passenger, a former special forces soldier and martial artist, who works in private security.
> 
> ****What was the passengers name?  The news story on ABC news did not report the mans name, however, the passenger who subdued the man had the guys picture on his cell phone.  What is the guys name?  Officials are saying there is no connection to terrorism, but is this a case of "nothing to see here, just move along" when in fact it was an act of terrorism?  What is the guys name?*****


Is there a link to the story please?


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Is there a link to the story please?



breitbart, bigbollywood or PJnews....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Is there a link to the story please?


Flights diverted over security threats

*Plane cleared to fly after 'security threat' in NM*


----------



## MJS (May 9, 2011)

Looks like, according to the article, the guy was taken off the plane.  It looks like they're still investigating, so I'm sure, within a day or so we'll hear a name.  Is it related to the death of Bin Ladin?  Dont know.  Was the guy in question of Arab decent?  No idea.  Personally, I dont care if the guy is green, white, or brown, an Arab, or any other nationality.  Bottom line, the guy is a nutjob for trying to open the door.  Fortunately he was stopped.  I expect that we'll see more of these incidents in the future, unfortunately.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

One of the best sources for daily information regarding threats to US infrastructure is here:

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0542.shtm

I realize it's not full of sensationalist BS, but it's a tad more accurate.  For those who actually care about accuracy.

Bob is right - if you read this thing daily (I do), you discover that although not reported widely, people have been mailing envelopes with 'mysterious white powder' hither and yon with great abandon lately - I mean LOTS.  Most of those arrested so far seem to be named "Joe" or similar - just saying, boys and girls.

Bomb plots and threats are likewise a daily occurrence  One that sticks in my mind recently was a guy who called a local high school to threaten them with a real bomb because they ran a drill that simulated an attack by right-wing extremists; life imitates art; a right-wing extremist makes threats to protest a right-wing extremist scenario.  Huh.  Go figure.  But of course, WND won't be covering THAT, will they?  No, the guy didn't have an Arabic name.

The guy who just planted a bunch of bombs at a mall in Colorado on the anniversary of Columbine?  Not a middle-eastern guy, folks.  So sorry if you're disappointed.  But again, didn't really make much of a dent in the headlines; it wasn't middle-eastern terrorism, it was domestic terrorism - again.

By the way, it appears that there is a concoction making the rounds lately that is made from common ingredients and a soda bottle; I don't know what it is - and I don't care - but the kids seem to have discovered it.  Problem is, it blows up with some real force - people are being injured daily by these 'pipe bombs' blowing up and taking out fingers and breaking bones, not just blowing up mailboxes for the fun of the big boom.  I don't think I'd call that terrorism, but it's pranking that is unfortunately way too dangerous; people are getting hurt.

Seriously, read the report.  It's worth it.  Real news, not make-um-up BS by people who hate Muslims.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 9, 2011)

Whatever the reason he tried to open the door the man needs to be locked away somewhere for a while.
Get him help for a mental condition if that's what he needs or lock him up for being a home grown terrorist.
Now I do hope the person who subdued him is give free flight a few times for stopping the incident from happening.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

tshadowchaser said:


> Whatever the reason he tried to open the door the man needs to be locked away somewhere for a while.
> Get him help for a mental condition if that's what he needs or lock him up for being a home grown terrorist.
> Now I do hope the person who subdued him is give free flight a few times for stopping the incident from happening.



To the best of my knowledge, doors cannot be opened inflight.  This was changed after the DB Cooper incident back in the 1970's.  So he could not have actually done it.  Not that it's a great idea to let him try.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 9, 2011)

According to this... the man was not associated with any terrorist organizations. 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3N1c3BlY3RvbmZsaQ--


----------



## billc (May 9, 2011)

A man from Yemen also caused problems on a flight, he banged on the door of the cockpit and also had to be subdued.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 9, 2011)

Ok Bill, that's 1 out of,....what a hundred?


----------



## Big Don (May 9, 2011)

There was the attack a few years ago on the Jewish center, no relation to terrorism, the guy happened to be Muslim, but, no connection. 
There was the Army Major who killed a few at Fort Hood, but, no connection to Islamic terrorism, none whatsoever.
Denying terrorism is terrorism, doesn't make us safer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

Big Don said:


> There was the attack a few years ago on the Jewish center, no relation to terrorism, the guy happened to be Muslim, but, no connection.
> There was the Army Major who killed a few at Fort Hood, but, no connection to Islamic terrorism, none whatsoever.
> Denying terrorism is terrorism, doesn't make us safer.



And scanning the headlines hoping to find an Arabic-sounding name so that one can go _"AHA!"_ doesn't make us safer either.

And of course, the big lie that is always told - if you don't agree that all these attacks are done by Muslims, you must not think any of them are.

It's not black-and-white, despite inference and mindset.  We *are* under attack by Islamists.  They're also a very very small minority, and we're also attacked by white supremacists, cranky right-wingers, cranky left-wingers, and people who are just plain nuts.  Pretending that only the ones by Muslims matter?  To me, it indicates an unhealthy obsession at best.


----------



## granfire (May 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And scanning the headlines hoping to find an Arabic-sounding name so that one can go _"AHA!"_ doesn't make us safer either.
> 
> And of course, the big lie that is always told - if you don't agree that all these attacks are done by Muslims, you must not think any of them are.
> 
> It's not black-and-white, despite inference and mindset.  We *are* under attack by Islamists.  They're also a very very small minority, and we're also attacked by white supremacists, cranky right-wingers, cranky left-wingers, and people who are just plain nuts.  Pretending that only the ones by Muslims matter?  To me, it indicates an unhealthy obsession at best.




you left out 'hormonal  soccer moms' (and those are about in pretty large numbers...)

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
See, there is the problem: as horrible as 9/11 was, it was a relative minor thing. A few buildings out of billions, 4 flights out of hundreds or thousands, 3000 people out of nearly 400 million....

But yet, we dug ourselves in, shaking every time a siren blairs. Some Arabic guys sneezes, we catch the swine flu or SARS...

The essence of terror is to put fear into the hearts of the people, make them afraid of their shadows, second guessing their moves or thoughts. Terrorism wins.
TSA is a salute to terrorism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> you left out 'hormonal  soccer moms' (and those are about in pretty large numbers...)
> 
> There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
> See, there is the problem: as horrible as 9/11 was, it was a relative minor thing. A few buildings out of billions, 4 flights out of hundreds or thousands, 3000 people out of nearly 400 million....
> ...



Far worse than Islamic terrorism to me, even worse than the TSA, are my fellow citizens who are grimly enjoying attempting to foment hatred of Muslims.    They are my enemy, even more than the Islamists who are terrorists.


----------



## WC_lun (May 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Far worse than Islamic terrorism to me, even worse than the TSA, are my fellow citizens who are grimly enjoying attempting to foment hatred of Muslims. They are my enemy, even more than the Islamists who are terrorists.


 
These same people are making a characterture (sp?) out of themselves and don't even know it.  They decry loudly anytime a right wing person is described as racist as nothing but race baiting by thier detractors, then have the gall to foment hatred and yes, racism.  It is like a Twilight Zone episode or something.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> These same people are making a characterture (sp?) out of themselves and don't even know it.  They decry loudly anytime a right wing person is described as racist as nothing but race baiting by thier detractors, then have the gall to foment hatred and yes, racism.  It is like a Twilight Zone episode or something.



The very first rule of war is to know who your enemy is.

If I am attacked by a man who lives on the next block over, and I decide that everyone who lives on that block is my enemy because they look like him, they act like him, they pray like him, and they didn't turn him in to me and I take action on it, I am going to lose.  I probably won't get the man who attacked me, and the chances are pretty high someone on the block of people I've attacked is going to get me.  And no matter how the people on that block feel about the guy who attacked me, they're going to have more sympathy for him than me when I attack them for the crime of being his neighbor.

The morons beating this anti-Muslim drum are trying to start a war with people who are not our enemy; and they actually seem to be taking pleasure in knowing they are starting a war that will drag everyone into it, no matter who is actually responsible.

But of course, the next post that refutes my statement will accuse me of wanting the terrorists to get away with murdering us, or of mollycoddling them, or of sympathizing with terrorists, etc, etc.  The fact is, I want terrorists who attack us to be tracked down and taken out with extreme prejudice.  THE TERRORISTS.  Not a bunch of people who have the same religion and happen to look a lot like them.  These short-sighted morons, our countrymen, are going to start a shooting war with 1.5 billion people; and when they do, we're going to lose.  I don't want to die because some morons in my own country have nothing better to do than to hate people for their religion.  They're my enemy, like I said.  If I meet one face to face, I'll probably punch him in his racist face.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Far worse than Islamic terrorism to me, even worse than the TSA, are my fellow citizens who are grimly enjoying attempting to foment hatred of Muslims.    They are my enemy, even more than the Islamists who are terrorists.


Took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## WC_lun (May 10, 2011)

Excellent post, Bill.

I have to wonder if these people who foment this racism are really morons and idiots.  At first glance it is easy to assume so.  However, you look at some of the people spouting this nonsesnse and they are not stupid people...at least they don't apear to be.  I normally abhor conspiracy theories, but it is hard for me to believe that so many people are really that stupid.  Then again I've seen the polls on different things such as Saddam Hussein being responsible for 911 and people believing Obama isn't American, so maybe it is just plain old stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

a whole bunch of people owe Billi an apology

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/med...cockpit-door-video-examples-of-newscasts-fro/

*Media Manipulation? The Majority of American Media Outlets Fail to Report the Yemeni Passenger Was Shouting &#8216;Allahu Akbar&#8217; as He Attempted to Storm the Cockpit Door &#8211; Video Examples of Newscasts From Around the Country*



he WAS a muslim, and he WAS shouting the international slogan for terrorist for the past 20 years.

but i am quite sure the usual reality denying folks will pooh pooh pooh this away too.

for some people, no amount of smoke is proof of fire........./eyeroll


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Excellent post, Bill.
> 
> I have to wonder if these people who foment this racism are really morons and idiots.  At first glance it is easy to assume so.  However, you look at some of the people spouting this nonsesnse and they are not stupid people...at least they don't apear to be.  I normally abhor conspiracy theories, but it is hard for me to believe that so many people are really that stupid.  Then again I've seen the polls on different things such as Saddam Hussein being responsible for 911 and people believing Obama isn't American, so maybe it is just plain old stupidity and ignorance.




translation: anyone that doesnt agree with me is a stupid doodoo head.....


seriously?

you are seriously saying that someone is stupid because they hold an opinion, (which is perfectly valid given the FACTS) that you dont agree with?

i mean, thinking that terrorists are likely to be muslim isnt like thinking elvis is still alive.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i mean, thinking that terrorists are likely to be muslim isnt like thinking elvis is still alive.


 
Actually, I think it's the reverse of that which other posters are arguing against. It's more "thinking that muslims are likely to be terrorists".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i mean, thinking that terrorists are likely to be muslim isnt like thinking elvis is still alive.



It's not that.  It's this:

Man tries to open airline door: Not Muslim.  Therefore, of no interest.
Man threatens airplane in flight: Not Muslim.  Therefore, of no interest.
Man pounds on airplane cabin door in flight:  Muslim.  OH MY GOD IT'S A FREAKING MUSLIM TERRORIST WE MUST NOTIFY EVERYONE OH MY GOD LOOK LOOK LOOK IT'S A MUSLIM TERRORIST!!!

Three incidents, all in proximity to each other.  All bad.  All something to be concerned about.  But ask some folks around here; if it's not MUSLIM TERRORISTS OH MY GOD it's not news.  Not worth discussing.  Even if this very thread was started about at NON Muslim terrorist - related event, the OP quickly changed his point once it became clear that it didn't involve a Muslim.  Fortunately for him, there was a Muslim involved in a different incident.  Whew!  Thank goodness; he almost broke his 100% Muslim-hating record for posts.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

i do not think that a muslim is likely to be a terrorist

i DO think that a terrorist is likely to be a muslim

and in this case, Billi was right


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 10, 2011)

Is that on any -credible- news sites?

Because I have at least a dozen sites that claim that Osama is alive, one of which claims he's been working for the CIA all along, and is now in Malibu under a new name.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

bob, WATCH THE CLIP, it has a witness, FROM THE PLANE.


----------



## Tez3 (May 10, 2011)

Actually I can think of far more non Muslim terrorist organisations than I can Muslim ones, they range from a Jewish one to Hindu, communist, racist, fascist, many Christian ones, nationalist ones and just plain nihilist ones. Altogether I'm sure they outnumber the Muslim ones.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

over HERE tez, when someone tries to blow **** up, they have been, historically, mostly muslims


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 10, 2011)

John,  I get warnings from my filters on that site so as it's not one I've heard of before, I'm leery to trust it.

Also, historical isn't "past 20 years".  Historically, in the US, the biggest dealer of mass murder & terrorism has been the US army. 
- Indian Wars, where the US Army regularly massacred unarmed women and children, as well as gave them poisoned food and virus infected blankets and clothing.
- US treatment of the South during and after the "Civil War" which included wholesale devastation, legalized rape of Southern women, outright theft of property.
- Continued treaty violations regarding Native American tribes, forced indoctrination of Indian children, forced conversions to Christianity, eradication of numerous native languages and cultures.
You miss "Animal Liberation Organization", "Aryan Nation". BLO, the KKK (which is still active today and in the 60's terrrorized much of the South), and The Weather Underground, to name a few.  From 1980-2000 there were actually 250 domestic terrorism actions (as per FBI), done by US citizens.
The majority were non-muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States


----------



## Tez3 (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> over HERE tez, when someone tries to blow **** up, they have been, historically, mostly muslims


 
so off the top of my head, domestic terrorist groups, I can look up more I'm sure, there's the Unabomber too as I remember. 
KKK
Jewish Defence League
Symbionese Liberation Army
Army of God
Animal Liberation Front
Black Liberation Front


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 10, 2011)

I started a separate topic for US Domestic terrorism as we're muddying things a bit as we drift around. Lets take that over there. I've copied most of my notes to it for reference.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i do not think that a muslim is likely to be a terrorist
> 
> i DO think that a terrorist is likely to be a muslim
> 
> and in this case, Billi was right



Never heard of the IRA, then?  Not Muslims.

Here's a nice list of designated terrorist organizations.  Most of them are Muslim, yes.  Many of them are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

Here is the USA's list of foreign terrorist organizations.  Again, most are Muslim.  Many are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations

Here's a list of terrorist attacks in the USA.  Historically most were NOT perpetrated by Islamic extremists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Most of the recent attacks are indeed by Islamic extremists.

But no one is denying that.  Not the right wing, not the left, not the independents as far as I can tell.

What's happening is that when a non-Muslim commits an act of terrorism in the USA, the right refuses to notice it happened.  When a Muslim does it, they blow up and spray foam from their mouths.  That means something to me - something ugly.  It's not that there isn't a threat from Islamic terrorists; there is.  It's that all certain people want to see or talk about are what the EVIL Muslims do; and they just don't want to discuss what plain old US citizens do.

I mean...



> 2009 November 5: Fort Hood Shooting - Muslim terrorist.  Lots of noise about it.
> 2009 June 10: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting.  Not a Muslim.  YAWN!
> 2009 June 1: Arkansas recruiting office shooting - Muslim terrorist.
> 2009 May 25: Crude bomb explodes in a Starbucks in Manhattan's Upper East Side - Not a Muslim.  YAWN!
> 2009 May 31: Assassination of George Tiller. Dr. George Tiller - Oops, that was a self-proclaimed Christian.  Nope, not going to discuss it.  Not a Muslim so YAWN!



The point is not that they are or are not Muslims.   Not that they did or did not shout Allah Akbar as they pounded on the cabin door.  The point is that in three separate events in two days, two were NOT committed by Muslims, so WE WILL JUST PRETEND THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN and point out the one that WAS committed by a Muslim so we can say SEE HOW THEY ARE?  SEE HOW THEY ARE?

We see, all right.  We see how the people pointing the fingers are.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

Bill, as long as your only tactic is to ridicule anyone that disagrees with you, i wont be discussing things with you. You called me a sick twisted person as I recall.

please

add me to your ignore list.


----------



## WC_lun (May 10, 2011)

I don't give a damn if you disagree with me or not.  In fact, sometimes it is nice just for a subject of conversation.  However, if a person judges another man's intent and heart by his clothing or ethnicity then he is a moron and a fool.  This isn't about difference of opinion.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

sure, i mean, not everyone in an orange jumpsuit is a criminal.....but its a safe belt sometimes


----------



## jks9199 (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> over HERE tez, when someone tries to blow **** up, they have been, historically, mostly muslims


Actually, they haven't.  With the exception of 9/11, we've suffered far more at the hands of issue terrorists than religious terrorists.  And lots of them have been homegrown...  Timothy Mcveigh.  Numerous anti-abortion activists.  Ted Kazinsky.  PETA/ALF.  And more.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

actually, that isnt true, as Bob showed in the other thread


----------



## billc (May 10, 2011)

I have to say there is no evidence that infected blankets were ever given to early americans.  Massacres happened on both sides.


----------



## elder999 (May 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say there is no evidence that infected blankets were ever given to early americans. .


 
Yeah, 'cause you just have to say **** that you clearly know nothing about.

The Siege at Fort Pitt:



> On June 29, 1763, a week after the siege began, Bouquet was preparing to lead an expedition to relieve Fort Pitt when he received a letter from Amherst making the following proposal: "Could it not be contrived to send the smallpox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." [1]
> Bouquet agreed, writing back to Amherst on July 13, 1763: "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself." Amherst responded favorably on July 16, 1763: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."[2]
> As it turned out, however, officers at the besieged Fort Pitt had already attempted to do what Amherst and Bouquet were still discussing. During a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Captain Simeon Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief that had been exposed to smallpox, in hopes of spreading the disease to the Indians in order to end the siege. Indians in the area did indeed contract smallpox. However, some historians have noted that it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident; the disease was already in the area and may have reached the Indians through other vectors. Indeed, even before the blankets had been handed over, the disease may have been spread to the Indians by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements. So while *it is certain that these British soldiers attempted to intentionally infect Indians with smallpox, it is uncertain whether or not their attempt was successful*


 
You can see Bouquet's letter to Amherst here, and Amherst's reply here. Both letter's are part of the British letters Project at the Library of Congress. It is, of course, worth noting that the native populace had already suffered a great deal of devastation by smallpox at this point in time.


----------



## billc (May 10, 2011)

Also, if you look at the domestic terrorists, Alf/elf and the unabomber were in large part lefties.  The one you might say wasn't a lefty might be Mcveigh, who was an anti-government guy.  I believe the environmental movement had more terrorist acts under its belt before 9/11, you would need to check F.B.I. stats to verify that.


----------



## elder999 (May 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Also, if you look at the domestic terrorists, Alf/elf and the unabomber were in large part lefties. The one you might say wasn't a lefty might be Mcveigh, who was an anti-government guy. I believe the environmental movement had more terrorist acts under its belt before 9/11, you would need to check F.B.I. stats to verify that.


 
You're still wrong about the blankets, so you've been pretty much impeached as a source.


----------



## billc (May 10, 2011)

Yeah, your right Elder, Michael Medved talks about the two blankets and one handkerchief in his book.  I'm in a hurry or I assure you, I would have mentioned it.  Of course he reports that it was two traders at the garrison, one of the dealers made a note in a journal declaring "I hope it will have the desired effect." But Medved points out this event occurred before Amherst and Bouquet exchanged letters.  But of course one incident, without obvious effect does not make a policy.  The sweeping statement is used too often to smear the other  early americans and Europeans on the contintent at the time.

Also never reported is the efforts to help the early americans suffering from the small pox.  Medved points out to attempts to vaccinate indians by a partner in a fur trading company and how the crew of the "St. Peter" tried to keep from infecting the early americans but they "could not be restrained" from approaching the boat which had sick crew members.  A mandan chief stole the blanket of a watchman suffering from the disease and attempts were made to recover it.  the whole village came down to the vessel for the trade goods.

After all, as Medved points out, early americans dead from the small pox do not trade beaver pelts for manufactured goods, they are too dead to make use of them.


----------



## elder999 (May 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Yeah, your right Elder, Michael Medved talks about the two blankets and one handkerchief in his book. I'm in a hurry or I assure you, I would have mentioned it. *Of course he reports that it was two traders at the garrison, one of the dealers made a note in a journal declaring "I hope it will have the desired eff*ect."


 
Actually, it was a British Captain, Simeon Ecuyer. 

You just have to be careful when you say things like "there's no evidence," and "*ever*," billi, especially when there is evidence. Makes you look stupid.

Of course, there are those who'd say....never mind.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 10, 2011)

jeff..........


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 10, 2011)

Maybe that's what happened.

Passenger was given a 300 year old stinky blanket and was trying to get off the plane to escape the cooties? A die hard Star Wars fan, he was calling out to his god, the famous Mon Calmari commander Admiral Akbar, which was misunderstood by panicking passengers distracted by the in flight movie "Benn Herr and the Temple of Poon".

Just saying, there is room for doubt here......


----------



## billc (May 10, 2011)

You were saying Elder...

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

from the article:

William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."


----------



## elder999 (May 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You were saying Elder...
> 
> http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm
> 
> ...


 
And this is typical of much of what you post, billi. The complete entry of Trent's journal makes quite clear just who "we" is as it includes the commanding officer of the fort at that time, none other than the Swiss-born British officer/mercenary, *Captain Simeon Ecuyer.*:



> The *Commanding Officer thanked them*, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.


 

So, I dub thee "_Sir billi, the *half-*truthful_.": the truth, the half-truth, and *nothing but the half-truth*.....:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (May 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Also never reported is the efforts to help the early americans suffering from the small pox. Medved* points out to attempts to vaccinate indians by a* partner in a fur trading company .


 
Hmmm. Thought this was likely B.S.

1763 was 23 years before Jenner's work on smallpox vaccination-in fact, the smallpox vaccine, developed in 1796, was the first vaccine.

_Inoculation_, might have been used, but most of those in the colonies at that time were as afraid of every step of the inoculation process (inhaling dried scabs from people's pox) as they were of smallpox itself.


----------



## WC_lun (May 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> sure, i mean, not everyone in an orange jumpsuit is a criminal.....but its a safe belt sometimes


 
Your analogy is flawed. Quite often an orange jumpsuit is in fact a prisonor uniform. In fact I would say the majority of the time. However, a person being a Muslim or dressed in Arabaic garb is almost never a terrorist. Therefore, equating a person to being a terrorist BECAUSE of his dress or ethnicity is not only ignorant, it is mistaken. It is, also the classic definition of racist.


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2011)

*What was the passengers name?*
What was the passengers name?
A male passenger got up out of his seat
the guys picture on his cell phone. 
What is the guys name?
Would it be a surprise after bin laden
man from Yemen also caused problems on a flight,
Massacres happened on both sides. 
What is the guys name?
I have to say there is no evidence
infected blankets were ever given to early Americans
Alf/elf and the unabomber were in large part lefties.
The crew of the "St. Peter" tried to keep from infecting
What is the guys name?
I'm in a hurry or I assure you
I would have mentioned it.
:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2011)

seriously?

*rac·ism&#8194; &#8194;[rey-siz-uh
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





m] 

 Show IPA*


noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human*races*  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. *hatred or intolerance of another race  or other **races**.*

since when is muslim a *race*????????????????????????????


apologize now or forever be exposed as a race baiter. stupid assinine **** like THIS is why no one takes cries of "racist" seriously anymore.......it's been over used and falsely used tooo damn much lately, and always by liberals....






And Jeff, you ought to be ashamed for dinging that post, though i suspect your ding was just for the snarkyness, or that fact that it opposes ME.....





WC_lun said:


> Your analogy is flawed. Quite often an orange jumpsuit is in fact a prisonor uniform. In fact I would say the majority of the time. However, a person being a Muslim or dressed in Arabaic garb is almost never a terrorist. Therefore, equating a person to being a terrorist BECAUSE of his dress or ethnicity is not only ignorant, it is mistaken. It is, also the classic definition of racist.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

Arab is a race and Arabaic dress is an indication of race.  So I guess when it comes to the dress it is racism and a person being Muslim it is just plain old discrimination?  Either way the behaviour is what we are talking about.  You may call it whatever you like, racism or discrimination, but judging another human being as a terrorist because of his dress or religion is ignorant, stupid, and counter-productive. While I notice you take issue of the definition of the term I use and try to distract from my arguement by calling me a race baiter, you still have no counter to the actual arguement used.  Until dress and religion stop being used as an equation to terrorist, you will recieve no apology from me.


----------



## elder999 (May 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> seriously?
> 
> 
> And Jeff, you ought to be ashamed for dinging that post, though i suspect your ding was just for the snarkyness, or that fact that it opposes ME.....



Huh?


----------



## billc (May 11, 2011)

Well, I guess the link to the entire article on the incident at the fort just got past you elder, you might want to read the whole thing.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2011)

people who define thier reality by liberal idealogy and "feelings" NEVER apologize, even when proven wrong, as you just were

muslim is not a race, ergo, being anti muslim cannot, BY DEFINITION be racist.

just admitt you screwed up and let it go
*
"Arabaic dress is an indication of race"
*
a white man cant wear arabic dress?
Obama wore arabic dress once , does that mean he is racially arab?stop while you are behind,

*" but judging another human being as a terrorist because of his dress or religion is ignorant, stupid, and counter-productive."

*
and you would make a ****** cop. If a report comes over the radio, two white males, dressed like bruce lee, you aint gonna stop the guy in a lakers jersey....aND RIGHT NOW, THE MAIN THREAT is from muslims, so you give muslims a second look, it isnt that ALL muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists here lately have been muslim


DUH

god the stupidity in here sometimes.....


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and you would make a ****** cop. If a report comes over the radio, two white males, dressed like bruce lee, you aint gonna stop the guy in a lakers jersey....aND RIGHT NOW, THE MAIN THREAT is from muslims, so you give muslims a second look, it isnt that ALL muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists here lately have been muslim
> 
> 
> DUH
> ...


 
No kidding. And in response:



WC_lun said:


> However, a person being a Muslim or dressed in Arabaic garb is almost never a terrorist. Therefore, equating a person to being a terrorist BECAUSE of his dress or ethnicity is not only ignorant, it is mistaken. It is, also the classic definition of racist.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> god the stupidity in here sometimes.....


 
We at least agree on this.

I will apologize when I am wrong.  In this case I am not.  You are the one who continues to use "feelings" and flawed analogy to support your arguement.  I have shown you why your reasoning is flawed, yet you still use it. RandomPhantom and Elder understood the point well enough, why can't you?  Instead you focus on the periphary of the arguement and try to make me into something I am not.  

Oh, and not believing in racism and discrimination is not a "left" ideal.  It is just an ideal of people who have morals.  Plenty on your own side of politics also believe there is no room for racism and discrimination.

Perhaps you are right about me being a poor LEO.  However, I would not be arresting brown men for crimes just because other brown men committed those same crimes in the past.  I'd rely on things like descriptions of current suspects, crime scene info, behaviour of suspects, etc.  You know, what real police work is based upon?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2011)

you cried racism when there was none, you know it, i know it, everyone reading knows it, till you admitt it, i am done with you.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you cried racism when there was none, you know it, i know it, everyone reading knows it, till you admitt it, i am done with you.


 
Really?  You should reread many of these post.  They agree it is racism and even if they didn't, it is. In fact, I got a positive rep for my post saying thanks for calling a spade a spade.  You want to cling to a belief even though it is being proven wrong.  You don't want to hear it is racism or discrimination because that has such negative conotations, and rightly so.  Sorry, but tough.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. The good news is that beliefs can and are changed all the time. I would welcome you being done with me because then I would not have to constantly explain what is so clear to others, but I doubt you'll be able to let someone have the last word.


----------



## billc (May 11, 2011)

From the article in my post:

The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

1) small pox had already broken out and the indians had visitied the fort hmmmm.
2)It doesn't state more than that blankets were given to the indians, not exactly by whom or under whose orders if any. Hmmmm

On small pox:

http://www.bing.com/health/article/mayo-126125/Smallpox?q=smallpox

*How smallpox spreads* 
Smallpox usually requires fairly prolonged face-to-face contact to spread. It's most often transmitted in air droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. In rare instances, airborne virus may spread further, possibly through the ventilation system in a building, infecting people in other rooms or on other floors. Smallpox can also spread through contact with contaminated clothing and bedding, although the risk of infection from these sources is slight.


----------



## billc (May 11, 2011)

Here is another aricle addressing Captain simeon, and there is no direct mention that he is the one who ordered blankets given out, even the two specific blankets and handkerchief in question, and the only journal entry I have seen so far comes from william trent and he doesn't mention anything clearly as to who gave them out or if there was an order to do it or if it was william trent who did it.

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/smallpox.htm

From the articleBut again, I don't see anything saying that Captain Ecuyer ordered the action or performed the action)

"Out of our regard for them (two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect (William Trent)."
The incident with Captain Ecuyer occurred during the Pontiac Rebellion. There is also evidence that Ecuyer tried to control the spread of smallpox, at least from his own men.
In a letter to Bouquet, Captain Ecuyer writes that Fort Pitt is in good state of defense against all attempts from Savages, who are daily firing upon the Fort; unluckily the Small Pox has broken out in the garrison, for which he has built an Hospital under the Draw Bridge to prevent the Spreading of that distemper (Peter d'Errico, nativeweb.org).

Also from the article:

In 1763, Fort Pitt was under siege by Indian forces under the command of Chief Pontiac...Pontiac Rebellion (Tebbel). With smallpox in the garrison at Fort Pitt and Indians attacking the fort, two blankets would have had little to do with the spread of smallpox among the Indians. A by far greater source for spreading the smallpox virus would have been infected blood from mutilated soldier and settler bodies, scalps, clothing, and in some cases cannibalism, which occurred during the Pontiac Rebellion. Every warrior that returned from Fort Pitt to Indian villages up and down the East coast with smallpox infected war trophies carried the smallpox virus with them. Contaminated warriors spreading the smallpox virus is never mentioned by proponents of Indian Genocide; it does not fit their biased agenda. This statement on smallpox is going to make a lot of people furious...good, that is the purpose. Before venting your ire, take a few minutes to read the entire article, think about it with an open mind, and then please respond with facts to back up your argument.


----------



## billc (May 11, 2011)

Here is another article on the Fort Pitt event. Once again, there doesn't appear to be an actual link between Captain Eculer and the infected blankets.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801650/posts

From the article:

*Journal of William Trent, excerpt:*
[May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of

***the website http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm an interesting thought regarding the trent journal entry, I also noted that the indians that were given the blankets seemed to be friendly to the people in the fort which makes one wonder why they gave them infected blankets, this website also asks wether or not the Captain himself or even the others, knew the blankets were infected.
*Indian forces under the command of Chief Pontiac laid siege to Fort Pitt (June 22, thru July, 1763). Several weeks before the siege (May 24th, 1763), William Trent, commander of the local militia, wrote:*
*"Out of our regard for them (two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. *​*The above paraphrased quote from William Trent's Journal has been taken as the major evidence for using smallpox blankets...but...the full quote by Trent is subject to a different interpretation. *
*"[May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as [at] Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of."*​*The full quote indicates the giving of the blankets was a gesture of gratitude towards friendly Indians. At this time, there is no evidence Captain Ecuyer, Commander of Fort Pitt, knew the blankets were infected with smallpox. Several weeks later, June 13, 1763, Captain Ecuyer wrote to Colonel Bouquet:*
*Fort Pitt is in good state of defense against all attempts from Savages, who are daily firing upon the Fort; unluckily the Small Pox has broken out in the garrison, for which he has built an Hospital under the Draw Bridge to prevent the Spreading of that distemper.*​*The above quote from William Trent's Journal was written two months before the exchange of letters( July 13-26, 1763) between Amherst and Col. Bouquet. In a footnote of a letter (July 16, 1763) to Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote:*
*"Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them". *​


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda whine cry ***** moan complain blah blah




Alinsky 101 repeat the lie often enough, the dumb ones will believe it......
plus some Alinsky 103 (when proven wrong, ridicule the person doing it) for good measure


you are boring me now.


----------



## billc (May 11, 2011)

Also from the furtrapper.com article:

*The Amherst-Bouquet letters have been used to support the proposition of germ warfare against native populations. Amherst may have discussed it in correspondence with Bouquet, but there is no evidence Colonel Bouquet carried it out. As he mentioned in his reply, Bouquet was afraid of what it would do to his own men and with good reason. 1763 was twenty-three years before Jenners work on vaccination, and one hundred years before Pasteur advanced his germ theory. The only thing known about smallpox in 1763 wasage, color of skin, social status meant nothing to the smallpox virus...an infected person died or, if lucky enough to survive was often disfigured for life. No matter how bad Amherst wanted to be rid of the Indians, it seems doubtful if Bouquet would unleash a disease on his soldiers which had already killed millions of his own countrymen. *


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Alinsky 101 repeat the lie often enough, the dumb ones will believe it......
> plus some Alinsky 103 (when proven wrong, ridicule the person doing it) for good measure
> 
> 
> you are boring me now.


 
ROFL So sorry to bore you.  How did I ridicule you?  By stating how and why you are wrong?  If you don't like my arguements then counter them intead of the constant BS posts you have been writing.  You should probably look closer at who your rules apply to.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2011)

Alinsky 105: Deflection. Accuse the other person of doing exactly what you are doing, it confuses them and gives you time to ridicule and tell more lies.


----------



## WC_lun (May 11, 2011)

Alinsky 120, post total nonsense hoping someone will believe it.  See I can do it too.

I thought you were done.  You post an awful lot for being bored and done.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 11, 2011)

sadly, i am also easily amused


----------

