February 8, 2007, - 2:53 pm

Remember When the U.S. Govt. Opposed . . .

By Debbie Schlussel
. . . Airline pilots arming themselves with guns after 9/11?
Well, now the U.S. is asking foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when they fly overseas. Now, we’re makin’ progress.
Unfortunately, the wimpish, effeminate, and quickly-becoming-Islamic Sweden is resisting. Figures. Screw ‘em.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , ,

15 Responses

GOP club to be booted from College for Stepping on Hamaz Hizbula Flags
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/EDGRJN76O61.DTL
Desecrating ‘allah’ on flag of terrorists not allowed in san francisco state U

Test Test on February 8, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I’m not too sure how approved this will be, but maybe you’ll read it anyway (it’s worth a shot).
The government wants our pilots to carry guns into EVERY country, not just countries that hate us. This is for good reason, because countries like Sweden do not have the precautions against terrorist like we do.
See, we will not let them carry guns on in-country flights because we are secure in our security precautions (and the fact that we have air marshals on most of our in-country flights but not on our international flights). I guess the world is easy when you only research those details that agree with you. Is it, Debbie?
HUH? I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU’RE SAYING OR HOW IT IS THAT WE DISAGREE.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Hacbarton on February 8, 2007 at 3:41 pm

@test test
if you’re a member of a student club (which gets funding from the university at large), you are bound to certain rules… which the actions of the college republicans were clearly in violation of. in addition, the campus is not deemed a “public space” wherein such protests are allowed.
now, does that mean that such violations do not occur all the time? of course not. there are even faculty-led protests of a variety of stripes which occur on campus all the time. i’m just pointing out that the argument should be “why is the rule being selectively enforced” not “this hate speech is protected by the first ammendment” (which it’s not).

ready5 on February 8, 2007 at 3:56 pm

During the 1930s, pilots on any flight that carried the US Mail (which included substantially all airline flights) were *required* to carry guns. I can’t think of any good reasons why the requirement should not still be reinstated.
One of my first blog posts dealt with the question of arming airline pilots:
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2002_10_01_photoncourier_archive.html#83480817
…hard to believe that, more than four years later we have many airline flights with neither armed pilots nor marshalls.

photoncourier.blogspot.com on February 8, 2007 at 3:57 pm

“if you’re a member of a student club (which gets funding from the university at large), you are bound to certain rules”…and if you are a public university, you are bound to ensure that these rules are in compliance with the Bill of Rights. “It’s our rule” does not constitute an acceptable defense.
Also, why precisely to you consider this to be “hate speech?” If students in the 1940s had burned a German flag (which I believe still included an iron cross) and a German uniform (the belt buckle of which included the words “Gott Mit Uns”) would you have considered the action to be hate speech?

photoncourier.blogspot.com on February 8, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I like how every country or anything that opposes the United States in any shape or form gets classified on your site as being Islamist. I fail to see how a country whose has a Muslim population of roughly half a percent of the total population can be classified as being “quickly-becoming-Islamic”.
If you had actually done any research at all on Sweden, you’d realize that the country as a whole makes it nearly impossible to carry any firearm for all it’s citizens. It’s a country known for very low crime rates compared to other developed countries, esp. with the United States due to Sweden’s inaccessibility to firearms and historic gun control laws. After all, what’s the probability that terrorists will attack plane flights coming out of Sweden? Now compare that to the likelihood of any one of their citizens dying in a car accident, cancer, or heart failure? Now based on the greatest number of lives saved in the long run, which threat would rather focus on?
ISLAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION THERE AND THE NAME MOHAMMED IS THE MOST POPULAR BOY’S NAME IN SEVERAL BIG CITIES THERE. BUT I’M SURE ISLAM IS NOT GROWING QUICKLY THERE–IT’S ALL JUST MY IMAGINATION.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

b0wl0fud0n on February 8, 2007 at 4:13 pm

who cares about sweden only good thing coming from that country is porn

PNAMARBLE on February 8, 2007 at 4:18 pm

@PNAMARBLE
Not only should we not care about Sweden, lets also not care about the 40% of the world who also has a negative opinion of the United States ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm ).

b0wl0fud0n on February 8, 2007 at 4:36 pm

@photoncourier.blogspot.com
“if you are a public university, you are bound to ensure that these rules are in compliance with the Bill of Rights. ‘It’s our rule’ does not constitute an acceptable defense.”
- somewhat true, but mostly false. yes, such rules have to be constitutional, but it is legal to place some limits on free speech in certain arenas (operating rooms, air traffic control towers, during a natural emergency, etc). while students can assemble and engage in free speech, they cannot expect university funding unless they’re willing to confine their activities in such a way that does not infringe on other students’ right to the education they’re paying for.
“Also, why precisely to you consider this to be “hate speech?” If students in the 1940s had burned a German flag (which I believe still included an iron cross) and a German uniform (the belt buckle of which included the words “Gott Mit Uns”) would you have considered the action to be hate speech?”
- yes, i would. but hate speech is just as tough to define as any of the other limits on free speech (libel, slander, verbal assault, harrassment, sedition, obscenity, etc). pragmatically, i suppose we should allow a certain level of speech regardless of its content/form/motive… the question is whether or not these students crossed that line. personally, i’d say that flaying them on the altar of political correctness is the wrong move here… it will only send the wrong message about free speech and will further cloud the public’s conception of what is and what is not “free speech”.
bottom line: sfsu can punish the group as a whole for violating their charter, but should not broaden this into a debate on free speech, which it clearly is not.

ready5 on February 8, 2007 at 4:54 pm

@debbie
i defy you to prove either of the claims you just made:
- that islam is the “fastest growing religion” in sweden.
- that “mohammed” is the “most popular boy’s name in several big cities” in sweden.
any accredited academic or professional journalistic source will suffice.

ready5 on February 8, 2007 at 5:00 pm

ready5…do you honesty think that the public areas of a university are analogous to life-critical environments such as operating rooms and air traffic control towers?
And if the management of an ATC tower decided to ban any insults directed against Nazis or Islamic Fascists, while permitting insults against the US and Israel–which is directly analogous to the position taken by many university administrations–then I think the courts would have a problem with it.

photoncourier.blogspot.com on February 8, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Nearly all E. U. countries are paralyzed with fear at the idea of Ôø?offendingÔø? the Muslim population they suffer from. Any attempt to make an air flight more secure by having a pilot carry a pistol would be regarded as an insult to Islam; the religion of Ôø?peace.Ôø?
Malmo Sweden has so many Muslims, it is more Islamic than Swedish. The Malmo crime rate is much higher than in any Swedish city. The many rapes are nearly all against Swedish women and by Ôø?immigrants.Ôø?

John on February 8, 2007 at 5:26 pm

@photoncourier.blogspot.com
- nope, because that’s not what i said. i was merely pointing out that there are many instances wherein free speech is limited… i was drawing no parallel between a university campus and operating rooms, etc. let me state once again, however: there is a misconception that public universities are public spaces. not so. not only are “public” universities getting an increasing amount of funding from private sources (in many cases more than half), they are not any more open to public demonstrations than the inside of a police station would be. interrupt a class to wave a banner and you will be arrested, bottom line. however, many schools have created “free speech zones” wherein even members of the community can assemble and demonstrate… so long as they don’t cause a disturbance or hinder students from attending their classes.
- that’s an odd analogy, but fine… and please note that i already pointed that out, hence my statement that “the argument should be ‘why is the rule being selectively enforced’?”
again, this is not about free speech… this is about a student club violating its charter. ever been a part of a student club? upon its founding (and at each review), you must sign a lengthy document which stipulates exactly how you are allowed to behave… violation of which will suspend your support/funding from the university and possibly subject you to punishment. for a more proper analogy, try an nda (non-disclosure agreement) which expressly prohibits certain acts of speech… violation of which constitutes a breach of contract.

ready5 on February 8, 2007 at 5:40 pm

@DEBBIE
Oh no! Maybe Islam might grow to make what…. 1% from 0.54% of Sweden’s total population? Oh no! Islam’s growth rate this year was 100%! Oh no! Even though the country is 87% Lutheran and 10% Catholic, Sweden is in trouble! All of those people are going to convert! OMG more Muslims! They are a threat to us all because Islam is such a bad religion! Even though 21% of the world believe in Islam, these people are clearly all bad because they might become radical terrorists!
Lets take a look at the numbers. Should we focus on terrorist even to kill us? Or should we take a look at toxic waste, which is 900x more likely to kill the average American than terrorism. Oh no, maybe we should take a look at fires, which is 5x more likely than toxic waste to kill the average American. Or should we focus on murder which is 4.5x more likely to kill the average American than fire. Or should we focus on driving which is 2x more likely to kill the average American than murder. Or should we focus on smoking, which is 10x more likely to kill the average American than driving ( Keep in mind, smoking is 400,000x more likely to kill the average American than terrorism )? I think the choice is obvious.

b0wl0fud0n on February 9, 2007 at 5:10 am

@b0wl0fud0n
note: unfortunately, being the voice of reason just gets you censored on this site. you’ve been warned. however, i feel i must point out that there’s a difference between ‘what is fatal’ and ‘what could be fatal’… i don’t think it’s misguided to spend some time considering the effects of terrorism and seeing what ways there could be to mitigate/prevent those effects. any sort of ww3 will be fairly dang fatal… but from my point of view, debbie schlussel et al are on the vanguard of promoting that confrontation. (e.g. let’s have some more video clips of usa soldiers acting like backwood hicks with a new propane bomb.)
also, you raise a point that i was trying to walk debbie into: there’s a large difference between ‘relative growth’ and ‘absolute growth’. but she’s yet to back up her wild claims, so whatever… i’ll grant that she might not have read my earlier challenge… but i’m guessing that she’s just conveniently ignoring it.

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 9:26 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field