Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

Here in rec.travel.air,
"Marie Lewis" spake unto us, saying:

Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred?
Who says so?

Most USENET newsgroups tend to have a dominant language in use among
its users.

In the case of rec.travel.air, that language tends to be English.

People are free to post in other languages here as long as it doesn't
violate the charter of the newsgroup (I suspect the character of rta,
if it exists, doesn't specifically specify English, though it could).

However, I would expect a non-English posting to receive fewer answers
here since the majority of the posters here are English-speakers, and I
suspect a minority of those are bilingual.

"Barring" someone from USENET is a fairly difficult task. :-)

--
-Rich Steiner --- http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner --- Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

"Richard Steiner" wrote in message
...
Here in rec.travel.air,
"Marie Lewis" spake unto us, saying:

Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred?
Who says so?

Most USENET newsgroups tend to have a dominant language in use among
its users.

In the case of rec.travel.air, that language tends to be English.


But, this was a cross posting to, among others, rec,travel europe, where
there are often people of different nationalities.

The fact that posts "tend" to be in English does not mean that all have to
be.

ML

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:

Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.

Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just
a
convenient word to make it sound otherwise.

No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.



The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in
the
USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"

That's not really what chauvinism is though.

Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
the universe..


Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of Napoleon,
right or wrong.

Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:31:39 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:


...aside from the fugitive al-Qaeda member who participated in the first
WTC bombing who was living in Baghdad, and all of the meetings with
Iraqi intelligence by AQ operatives. Not to mention the years and years
of Hussein supporting many different terror groups over the years (cash
payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for example).

I have a bridge to sell you.

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:

A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America is
at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.

So what does that have to do with Iraq? They never attacked the US, and
there was never any evidence to link them with Al Queda.

...aside from the fugitive al-Qaeda member who participated in the first
WTC bombing who was living in Baghdad,

Gee, there might be an Al Queda member in Canada. Let's bomb Toronto
just in case.

and all of the meetings with Iraqi intelligence by AQ operatives.

That was never proven, only suspected, and there was never any
indication that there was Iraqi state support for Al Queda.

If Al Queda was the primary objective, then the majority of the effort
should have been directed at finding the last pockets of that
organization in Afghanistan. At least that struggle was supported by the
world community, and would have had the greatest effect of heading off
any future terror activities. The invasion of Iraq only served to
polarize the attitudes of the mideast population.

Not to mention the years and years
of Hussein supporting many different terror groups over the years (cash
payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for example).

Yes, originally supported by US money. As far as payments to the
families of the bombers, that could be viewed as simply humanitarian
aid, like that of the Red Cross, to the remaining family members who
weren't part of the attack, yet have their homes bulldozed by Israel as
a sort of punishment. It all depends on your perspective. It certainly
wasn't direct aid to the bombers themselves.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:51:04 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:

A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America is
at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.

So what does that have to do with Iraq? They never attacked the US, and
there was never any evidence to link them with Al Queda.

...aside from the fugitive al-Qaeda member who participated in the first
WTC bombing who was living in Baghdad,

Gee, there might be an Al Queda member in Canada. Let's bomb Toronto
just in case.


And there have been IRA members in the USA. We should have bombed
Boston by his logic.


and all of the meetings with Iraqi intelligence by AQ operatives.

That was never proven, only suspected, and there was never any
indication that there was Iraqi state support for Al Queda.


As there was no indication of US state support for the IRA.


--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:30:53 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:07:28 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:56:44 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:

In article , nobody
wrote:

It gives the illusion of enhancing security. Secondly, and more importantly
GET OVER IT. 9-11 was many years ago.

Two and a half is not "many."


The real distinction is between before and after the US attack on Iraq.

The day the US invaded Iraq, the "war on terrorism" was dead. The Bush
adminstration showed its true colors. It sowed the world what its real
agenda was and that the "war on terrorism" never went beyond a cheap
excuse. Crookery really.

Rather, the opposite. The US crusade agaisnt the Muslim world has palced
all of us unwillingly and unnecessarily at risk. Most of us do not see
the world in black and white. Most of us are stronlgy opposed to the Bush
crusade. Yet we end up being put in the same bag in the Muslim world
unfortunately. Only way out is to take a clear stance, as they did in
Spain.



Out of interest what is this week's explanation from Bush as to why he
invaded Iraq? We know it was nothing to do with WMDs, as everyone knew
there never were any. We know it was nothing to do with the 'war on
terror' as we all knew invading Iraq would only stimulate terrorism.
We know it was nothing to do with liberating an opressed people,
otherwise the US would have in popped in to Zimbabwe and Burma by now
to liberate the poor souls there, in both cases guaranteed to be an
easy job, and sure of a warm welcome. So what is the current
expanation for invading Iraq?
--==++AJC++==--

Given the current Tet offensive (whoops, I meant Shiite uprising) it's
more a "we can't leave now." The words "light at the end of the
tunnel" may be next.

In article ,
"Gary L. Dare" wrote:

Richard Steiner wrote:

I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

You should search CNN.com on their polling data from the past year.

I did. While a lot of Americans *agreed* with what the President was
(and is) doing, they're doing so because they think it's *right*, not
asa "line up behind the leader" thing.

Or even on their broadcasts (notably Aaron Brown's NewsNight).
People pouring out bottles of French wine a year ago ... "freedom
fries" ... "French Laundry" in Sacramento, CA getting defaced (it's
owned by naturalized citizens from Lebanon, where they do speak
French). All those clever and witty quotes of Homer Simpson's
"cheese munching surrender monkeys".

That's not so much "all lining up behind their leadership" as "not
liking what some of the other folks in other countries have been doing."

It's not a "follow the leader" thing, it's "hey, those French are sure
hypocrites" thing.

Even now, the NYT and Washington Post articles have a tone that
Paris and Berlin need to make up with Washington ...

Have you seen some of the crap in Le Monde? Some of the editorial
cartoons in French papers border on the obscene. If Europe has anything
to take up with us, it's how to stop being quite so rude in their papers.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
The Reids wrote:

Following up to AJC

Americans must be falling off their chairs laughing
at their government!

*should* be.

Do.

On the other hand, George Galloway isn't in jail, which bodes poorly for
the UK.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:34:42 -0400, nobody wrote:

Yet, where are the calls for
impeachement because your current government has broken the constitution's
obligation for due legal process ?

I think impeachment, street riots, etc. are
reduced because of the upcoming election. There is a lot of hope that
the problem will go away in about 8 months.

In the cases of Nixon and Clinton, the legal steps to remove them
happened after they were overwhelmingly reelected, not in the
preceeding year. There is a lot of hope that the problem will go away
in about 8 months.