Passenger tries to open door midflight: Terrorist?

[Twin Fist]

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

 

[jks9199]

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]

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

 

[billc]

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

 

[elder999]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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]

jeff..........

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

seriously?

rac·ism   [rey-siz-uh

m] Show IPA


–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various humanraces 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.....

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]

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]

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]

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.