Originally written by Jacek K. on July 5, 2009 6:35 PM    What does this "warrior dance" mean anyway?

It means that a tourist bus has just come into the parking lot. Between buses those guys usually stretch out under a tree somewhere.

Derek

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 5, 2009 4:34 PM On the other hand, you can see on TV chanting crowds that look rather menacing here and there so, gosh, maybe we should modify the idea to specifically include dance?

Yes, that is the problem with pictures, you can't just go out and photograph your typical riot. It mostly needs to be staged if it is to be convincing. This picture does not look very different from dozens I have seen taken at pop concerts yet the caption provided by the agency (Agence France Presse) was "Seven killed in Iran protests". If you judged solely by the picture then you might think that they all got trampelled to death in the rush to get to the last bus in time. You would certainly need a totally different organization if that lot were expected to dance (although I have been in discos that were just about as crowded).

Derek

Re this gem:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece

I wonder whether the Saudi royal family might be controlled by International Jewry.  It's of a piece: Britain trying to undermine "Islamic democracy" in Iran, International Jewry manipulating the Saudis...?

Hey...Scott just asks the questions....

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 5, 2009 8:46 PM  It's of a piece: Britain trying to undermine "Islamic democracy" in Iran, International Jewry manipulating the Saudis...

Everything is possible. You have to think like an Arab if you want to understand what goes on out there.

I once watched an interview with the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos Bin Al Said. When his air force was mentioned (SOAF) the Sultan was asked why all his fighter-bomber aircraft were being flown by Canadian pilots and not by Omanis. He answered that if he let Omanis fly them then the first thing that they would do would be to bomb his palace.

In the same way, the Saudis know full well that the first Iranian long-range missile fitted with a nuclear warhead would be targeted not on Tel Aviv but on Riyadh.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 5, 2009 4:43 PM  You have to think like an Arab if you want to understand what goes on out there. I once watched an interview with the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos Bin Al Said. When his air force was mentioned (SOAF) the Sultan was asked why all his fighter-bomber aircraft were being flown by Canadian pilots and not by Omanis. He answered that if he let Omanis fly them then the first thing that they would do would be to bomb his palace.

Fascinating.  Man of the world that you are, I'm sure you've heard the saying, in an airline context, "round eyes [alternatively blue eyes] up front"...? 

For the uninitiated, it means that, though you may be flying on an Arab-Asian-African flag carrier, the pilots are American/Canadian/British/Australian/(white) South African.  Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 6, 2009 6:00 AM For the uninitiated, it means that, though you may be flying on an Arab-Asian-African flag carrier, the pilots are American/Canadian/British/Australian/(white) South African.  Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....

Blimey! Those 2 planes that crashed recently, one off Bazil and the other off eastern Africa, must have been flown by non-Whites.

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 5, 2009 10:00 PM Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....

No, I don't mean that at all. There is a difference between running a civil air line and letting your political enemies, or the people that they could easily bribe, fly bombers over your palace. I would feel more confident in a passenger aircraft flown by an Arab than by an Englishman, even if only because there is a better chance that the Arab's blood alcohol level was still below the limit at takeoff. I also remember the British plane that collided with another over Croatia some years ago and the cabin voice recorder revealed that at the moment of the collision both British pilots were deeply immersed in the Sunday Times crossword puzzle.

For a year or so I worked for the now defunct Pan American Airways on a Caribbean Island. It was generally the responsibility of the Station Manager to check each aircraft immediately before it left. Our Station Manager, a white American, used to take his flashlight, go out the door, take a quick walk under the wings, come back in and say: "Looks all right to me!". I am a fatalist anyway and believe that you go when your time is up, not earlier, not later, but when I had to fly I always tried to get on an Air France flight, the food was better.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 6, 2009 8:03 AM I still maintain that the main reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, was to punish the Saudis for 9/11 (the fact that almost all the hijackers were Saudi and that Saudi Arabia supported Wahhabism and allegedly even knew of 9/11 prior to that date, but did not warn the U.S. [allegedly !]. And the punishment was to remove the "Sunni Shield" - Saddam, which resulted in the Saudis losing power relative to the Shiites in Iran.

Bravo!

That presents the US as a prime candidate for a major downgrade on Transparency International's rankings assuming that foreign relations and defence are part of the criteria, and possibly vocal hostilities if a nationalistic government is elected or grabs power in Saudi Arabia.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 6, 2009 8:03 AM I still maintain that the main reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, was to punish the Saudis for 9/11 (the fact that almost all the hijackers were Saudi and that Saudi Arabia supported Wahhabism and allegedly even knew of 9/11 prior to that date, but did not warn the U.S. [allegedly !]. And the punishment was to remove the "Sunni Shield" - Saddam, which resulted in the Saudis losing power relative to the Shiites in Iran.

Very unlikely, because

1)  9/11 was an inside job, as proven by www.ae911truth.org and others,

2)  they would have simply bombed the Saudis.