Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Of course. But then, there are rational fears and then the irrational fears. A thinking process can override an irrational fear, which is what we as human beings, the most complex beings in the known universe, can do. Sadly some people get overriden with the irrational fear and are too weak to resist it.
If there was anyone sensible on that plane, the whole thing needn't have happened.
I am sorry, maybe I have too much faith in the human being.
What's rational to one, isn't to the other.
If someone on a plane starts to talk about only having thirty minutes to live, only a few days after a major air scare I personally think its quite rational to be worried.
They weren't wearing summer cloths though. If you was in Malaga, then you wouldn't be wearing heavy clothing like they were, you would be wearing t shirts.
I find it deliciously ironic that a youth-based internet forum where many people regularly complain about the treatment and prejudice towards teenagers, hoodies etc in shops and malls should hear so many voices saying it's 'understandable' that people are suspicious around Arabs/Muslims/Asians on a plane.
You really couldn't make it up.
Mmm... I see what you're saying but personally I don't agree with that. Certain things aren't (or shouldn't be) understandable. Amongst them is ignorance, bigotry and prejudice based on skin colour and language of choice.
Perhaps my point is that there wasn't really much reason for bringing up the whole 'understanding' of why those people might have been justified in acting the way they did. I know we all seem to agree it was wrong, but discussing the possibility that such behaviour is understandable appears to suggest otherwise.
These multifarious misunderstandings and indignities have been portrayed as the inevitable and forgivable by-product of the ticklish situation in which Britain finds itself; but they are more a case of how the government, and to a lesser extent the police, have put out the wrong message to the general public. The passengers on the flight from Malaga to Manchester acted in the way they did because they felt that the authorities were incapable of dealing with the problem. For example, they may have heard the government minister Hazel Blears insist that the security procedures for boarding an aircraft should be non-discriminatory and that everybody, from the foam-flecked mullah with a six-inch fuse poking out of his Reeboks, to the white Christian granny with her bag of Werthers Originals, should be subjected to exactly the same procedures. Now, it would betoken safety — and also enormous expense and even greater inconvenience — if everybody was thoroughly searched and screened and cross-examined. But of course it doesn’t mean this; in practice it means that everyone gets a bit of a quick ferreting around and maybe has a cigarette lighter or a bottle of Lucozade taken away.
To everybody else in the living world it seems patently clear that people who look a bit like we would expect Muslim terrorists to look should be subjected to especially close scrutiny. And we do have a clue as to what Muslim suicide terrorists look like, from the police photos of those involved in the 7/7 bombing in London last year. We know this; I suspect the government knows this; and certainly the chavs on that Manchester flight know this. But by its insisting on this ludicrous ‘no discrimination’ clause, the public suspects that the government does not know what it is doing.
You might expect the police to complain; after all, part of their job is to arrest people or prevent crime being committed. Apprehending people in the street, for example, is a deeply discriminatory business: you go after the people who you consider might have committed, or might be about to commit, an offence. You do not apprehend people who arouse in you no suspicion whatsoever. But sadly the police, under the preposterous Sir Ian Blair, are, if anything, even more committed to a non-discriminatory search procedure than is the government.
The way to assure the public that its safety is being taken seriously and that its safety supersedes notions of political correctness is to search people who look a bit like terrorists with a degree more attentiveness than those who do not — and to state, publicly, that they will be doing so. It may slightly inconvenience some young Asian men who are standing in line and checking their watches simply because they are worried about the time — but it is preferable, surely, to a) seeing them evicted from the flight because the other passengers, unconvinced by the paradoxical policy of the authorities, have take pre-emptive action or b) seeing them blow up the aircraft five minutes out of Malaga, or Manchester. I wonder if Richard Reid, the almost incalculably stupid would-be shoe bomber, was adequately searched before he boarded the plane upon which passengers — much like those on that flight from Malaga — prevented him murdering hundreds of people? The stark fact remains that not a single terrorist or would-be terrorist has ever been apprehended at an airport security desk. So it is hardly a surprise that the passengers feel they must do the business themselves.
And yet still, neither the government nor the police wish to admit that any single person is more likely than anyone else to be a terrorist. Both institutions are in a strange state of denial. The would-be bombers are psychopathic anomalies and their collective adherence to Islam is simply a strange coincidence.
I seldom use public transport so I haven't been in the situation you propose. Perhaps I might have been worried- I don't know. Though at least you could say tube users don't get through the strict security checks air passengers do.
Looks like the two asian guys are serial fraudsters and the whole thing was a publicity stunt...
Blagsta said he flinched the first time,