Guns on Planes

[Adrian Kelland]

If anyone its Veronica Geurin, but I think that may be a coincidence. Cant find any info either way either.

[Juz]

<font color='#32CD32'>What about using un-armed sky marshals but with the ability to provide intel on what's going on within the plane - perhaps some sort of satellite text messaging system on a small hidden keypad. Perhaps strapped to the thigh that could be pressed through the trousers………………

This wouldn't help the passengers on board if the hijackers start dropping them, but it would give out an immediate notification of a problem and assist special forces teams to plan a deliberate assault if it were to become necessary, once the plane was on the ground.

[darthmoll]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Adrian Kelland @ Jan. 07 2004,14:41)]If anyone its Veronica Geurin, but I think that may be a coincidence. Cant find any info either way either.

<font color='#0000FF'>http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/orlaguerin.shtml

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>Orla is a BBC Corr in the Middle East formerly Southern Europe Corr.

Veronica another Dublin born journalist (NO RELATION) was murdered by a IRA Drug Gang.

Orla is not related to any IRA figure and has reported accurately and impartially for her whole BBC career including in Northern Ireland - which if she had any allegiances she would not have been ask to cover stories there.

[Mr T.]

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] Remember Bren - the planes that went into the twin towers were American planes - took off in the US not intercontinental aircraft.

Can’t argue with that, and can’t say (I guess we’ll never know) what happened aboard [vis-à-vis Marshals] both in the lead up to the seizing of the planes and in the moments leading to the crash. But it rather proves the point about better and more thorough ground search/security, what? American or other.

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] this is all about politics and nought to do with &quot;security&quot;

Whoa there!!! That’s a rather grandiose and somewhat unsubstantiated claim there mate! Not slipping into ‘journo-fact’ there, are ya?? ;-)

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] If Bush cared about security he'd be actively impressing on his friends in Israel the need for restraint and negotiation rather than funding them.

So the fact that he’s recently withheld billions of dollars from the annual US to Israeli Budget donation passed ya by? And why did he do this? In an effort to stop them building that blasted wall. Ireland and Berlin teach us that they are only ever a short-term fix to an, unless addressed seriously, on-going problem; a sticking-plaster over of gaping wound.

I think you might also have missed Bush’s recent speech where he declared that ‘all bets are off with regards ALL our Middle Eastern relationships’ [the main targets of this being the buttressing-up of both Saudi and Israel]?? Flying in the face of decades of US foreign policy and no small slight to his own father’s views, relationships and promises to the countries concerned. No small achievement in itself – but necessary if the once endless deadlock of attack and counter-attack cycle is to be broken.

Also, the US needs a ‘friend’ in the area: given that only Jordan and Egypt (post Carter’s Camp David Accords) are the only Arab/Moslem nations to actually recognise Israel and her right to exist. The rest either swear ‘Death to Israel’ or actually have it written into their own vagabond and bandit derived ‘constitutions’ (or what passes for them). It’ll come as no shock to you to find that (with the possible exception of, ironically, Iran, and that’s flawed) Israel is the only country in the area with free, plural and constituted elections for ALL sections of the populace, with Moslem MPs sitting in Parliament!! And you can wax lyrical about how defined and refined the other surrounding countries’ cultures are – and I have quite a large experience of working, travelling and living in the vast majority of them -, but in truth, whilst the average Joe in the street would give you the shirt off his back and the last grain of rice he had, they are basket-cases to a man; and why, because of Theocracies being in power where democracies should have, but have been prevented from being in place.

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] All Bush cares about is getting re-elected and if he has to use scare tactics, the US supreme Court or his dodgy family that's what he'll do.

You sound surprised by your own cynicism-driven point?! Show me a politico whose soul drive isn’t to either get into or retain power?? That’s not news. I say again, and regardless of how he achieves it [those issues are for the US people to address when it comes to voting], do you honestly think that Bush would be making these moves if the world back-drop didn’t dictate [as far as he and his advisors see it] same?? And if it wasn’t this cause [‘scare tactics’], it would be something else: Clinton went into bat on a ticket of scaring the nation about Health Care reforms? Plus ca change??

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] So he wins and then the US starts to &quot;sort out&quot; every rogue state with WMDs - great stuff.

Dude, if the opportunity to clean-house and remove some of God’s own nutters….errr..sorry….’Currently ‘recognised’ heads of state’ is there, then fine: let’s play! Skins or jerseys?? The US, being the world’s definition of capitalism, would rather trade with a free world – that old $$$ thing? You have to remember that a US president can only be in office a maximum of two terms – so even when Bush leave office, the next chap will want precisely the same for the US – Markets!! It can’t do that if it’s blowing the shit out of its potential customers, as war worries the markets and the US is predicated largely on (and has sold its soul to) the Stock Exchange. But to get to that nirvana-state, the need to have a level playing field, i.e. ‘equal’, democratic and free-trading states in which to sell their goods and services.

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] let’s start with Israel and then move onto China. Hey but what about human rights; OK then, let's do Kuwait next then Saudi ... mmnnn Turkey still torture we could do them after.

And you expect to cure the world’s ills or make any progress with such a highly honed level of cynicism and scepticism do ya Gav? I’ve said before, certain targets are too far gone (a la Iraq, as with the Nazis before them – and I’m not talking WMD here, more their general threat and constant stream of Norz to their own citizens and the outside world) to know when to wind their neck in and change their ways – the result being that someone has to step in and say, “look, we’ve warned you, pack it in or we’ll be round on Friday – have the kettle on…” I advocate talking as the primary method or resolution for all conflict. But to listen to you, you’d think that Saddam hadn’t been taking the piss out of the UN, The US and the wider world for years……after YEARS (indeed over a decade) of jaw-jaw. Well he bluffed, we called it and he got war-war. You can not say that he wasn’t given fair warning.

If you’d like to see how talking can prevail (and a shinning example to others on the World’s ‘Bad Boy’ shit-list, by the way), then all we need do is look to Libya – over 9 months of concerted ‘behind closed-doors’ and on the QT [incidentally a successful outcome very much led and formed by British, and heavily supported by the US, endeavours and diplomacy] negotiations; the result being that without a shot being fired or an invasion of any kind, Libya has coughed to all manner of nefarious behaviour on the old WMD front. Serious result for all concerned, I think you’ll agree? Also proof that the US doesn’t need to go to war with these countries where its aims can be achieved by talking and, no doubt, a whole boat-load of cash and aid.

Also, you can’t turn round and say “ah well, Libya has got oil!!”……so did Iraq, indeed the world’s 3rd or 4th largest reserves, and look what happened to her?! Also, the new ‘Book’ on Richard Perleman’s (Bush’s chief policy ‘guru’) views about the world from hereon in advocate treating Saudi as a, ahem, ‘non-friendly’ (i.e. hostile) state, and she’s got shed loads of oil to boot. So there is both method in the US madness and a certain even-handedness about the way these issues are being addressed.

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] This whole thing is starting to read like that awful SAS programme on BBC 2.

Sorry mate, you’ve lost me?

Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] I think it all comes down to trust. Do I trust George W Bush - a drug snorting, drink driving, filandering moron to be the world's arbiter on matters of security when what he needs is to retain power and keep his cronies in the oil industry happy?

OK, well after that post Michael Moore character precise of Bush, I’d advocate not trusting politicians. But then again, you knew that, right?

It boils down to this: we can all bleat long and hard about ‘Bush and the bloody Americans pushing their weight around’, but the simple truth is that the US is (and has been since immediately after the Treaty of Versailles, although some might have it that the real date dates back to the equalisation of Navies – and act which removed the British Empire as being the only world ‘Super Power’ - during the introduction of the Dreadnought class of battleships in the closing years of the 19th Century) the new 300-pound gorilla on the block; where once that used to be the British Empire. These things are cyclical and we all know what happens to empires!  


Gav:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] As you would say Bren - End of.

Hardly, old chap, this is a discussion, when all is said and done

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>Bren - you do a marvellous job quoting people out of context - you should consider tabloid journalism.

Some facts about my views to clarify.

I do not like, I never have liked Saddam Hussein or any other dictator. I am a democrat.

I dislike religeous fundementalists of any persuasion be they Moslem, Christian or Jewish.

I believe in free markets - that is those who are not controlled by state intervention. Something that the US does with regularity I'm sure you'll agree and provide other examples.

I do not believe that I can &quot;cure the world&quot; of any ills and being a cynic is a professional problem caused by seeing too many bodies that didn't need to be.

Like you I have travelled extensively and seen first hand the carnage perpetrated in the name of both democracy and fundementalism.

Israel has been talking the piss out if the UN for years, I know I wouldn't like to be turfed out of my home for a settlement to be built. It might make me angy enough to write a stiffly worded letter to my newspaper.

I agree that talking is the first way forward, next sanctions and then finally military intervention. This should be under the auspices of the UN if at all possible.

Libya's decision to co-operate is a great victory for the Libyan people as well as the UK and US. Well done to all concerned.

Finally, we have very different views on this. We probably come at it from different sides. I think we both want to see peace through negotiation, I'm just less likely to endorse military action. It doesn't make me an appeaser, just a humanist.

For information before anybody else accuses me of not knowing what I'm talking about.

These are my views and my views alone. They come from the experience of being a charity/aid worker in Bosnia and a reporting journalist in Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine, Israel, Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nepal, Chile and Russia to name a few.

I've been shot at four times and didn't ever like it or got used to it.

I'll agree to disagree with all of you about guns and planes. I s'pose I just don't like guns ...

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gavin Yates @ Jan. 07 2004,16:45)]Bren - you do a marvellous job quoting people out of context - you should consider tabloid journalism.

Gavin Yates!! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth??!

Wash your mouth out with soap and water that man!! &nbsp; Chip-rapper....errr...sorry, Tabloid journalism?! For sooth, sir! I'thee faith man [and any other Shakespearean exclamation I can drum up!]

And steady-on mate, be fair, I never quoted you out of context once: indeed I was scrupulous in incorporating the whole of your text so that others might see my counter points!

Tabloid jounalism!! Herrumph!! [walks off shaking head and needing a sit down and cup of tea at the very thought!] &nbsp;

Respect all your views mate - always have done; you're one of the more keenly engaging characters during debate time! long may it be the case!

See you in Mull.

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>What you do is quote a entire line of text and then make a statement that has little to do with the quote mixed up with a rebuttal.

It's called a Littlejohn in the business.

Very handy when debating ...

As you said &nbsp;- see you in Mull matey. You never know after a couple of drams I might decide to invade Greenland ....again. &nbsp;

[darthmoll]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gavin Yates @ Jan. 07 2004,15:21)]Orla is not related to any IRA figure and has reported accurately and impartially for her whole BBC career including in Northern Ireland - which if she had any allegiances she would not have been ask to cover stories there.

<font color='#0000FF'>As far as who she is related to, I said I can’t find out for sure, but I was told that she was, I may be wrong, and if I am I apologise.

To say that she has reported accurately and impartially for her whole career is stretching the imagination too far, her reports from the west bank are anything but, she is very anti Israeli, and always takes a pro Palestinian position.

People like her feed the fire, the PLO propaganda machine is second to none, its a pity they don’t mention that the money, millions of dollars, given to them by Israel and the US has been used to buy arms to continue the fight against Israel instead of providing better hospitals and schools for their people. Yasser and his cronies have got bank accounts stuffed full of dollars while their people live in poverty.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gavin Yates @ Jan. 07 2004,17:49)]What you do is quote a entire line of text and then make a statement that has little to do with the quote mixed up with a rebuttal.

It's called a Littlejohn in the business.

Very handy when debating ...

As you said  - see you in Mull matey. You never know after a couple of drams I might decide to invade Greenland ....again.  

Your appalling whiskey-soaked and fascist treatment of the poor defenceless Greenlanders apart, now you're accusing me of being akin to Littlejohn?? Yee gads man! &quot;...little to do with the quote..?&quot;

Consider yourself on sanctions, pre any pre-emptive 'Shock-n-Awe' action I might take in Mull, Mr Yates! &nbsp;