Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:35:11 -0800
Subject: Re: refugees and migrants UK


last night i was reading in the LA Times Sunday magazine, from last 
Sunday, an article on people who's lives were changed by the attacks 
on the US on Sept 11, and one of them was about the owner of the 
Freeway Aviation Training Center, a small flight school for new 
pilots.  Unfortunatley because the flight school is within 25 
nautical miles of Washington DC, it's permanently closed and the 
man's business is ruined.  That was the point of the article. But it 
also included a part where it said that the second week of August, a 
man named Hani Hanjour came to the flight school with a federal 
pilots license, asking to rent a  Cessna 172.  The instructors took 
him up in the plane as a precaution that they always use to make sure 
a person really knows how to fly, and they found that he had trouble 
controlling and landing the plan so they didn't rent it to him.  A 
month later  he's accused of apparently skillfully flying a Boing 757 
into a perfectly executed hit on the Pentagon.  So this is confusing. 
Could someone who couldn't fly a single engine Cessna skillfully fly 
a 757 a month later?   Do we know who really flew these planes and 
why?  Will the story ever be told, or will the official version be 
repeated over and over as my father told it to me, as  his father 
told it to him, for time immemorial?
judy


>
>
>I would simply point out that the people who flew the planes into 
>the WTC have been identified by the FBI as not being Islamic 
>Fundamentalists - rather they were more modern - young well educated 
>- vodka drinking youngish men from the middle east. I am slightly 
>bemused about what this means... I had assumed a higher level of 
>involvement of some repressive ideology/theology but it may be 
>something else entirely.
>
>Richard Perls said on the radio here that he wanted to bomb iraq, 
>libya, yemen, sudan and some other places - civilised man.
>
>One more victory for truth over the spectacle...
>
>regards
>sdv
>
>hbone wrote:
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>1) The NYTimes reports that a significant percentage of New York City
>>recruits into the military services are immigrants with green cards.
>>
>>2) Anyone who has spent time at U.S. colleges or universities in the last
>>decade knows there are a great many foreign students. About 10 years ago, on
>>a visit to the Fogg Museum at Harvard, the campus was cluttered with groups
>>of new students whose orientation leaders were pointing out the sights and
>>telling ancecdotes.  One was a story of Gertrude Stein explaining to Wm.
>>James why she hadn't submitted a certain assignment..
>>
>>There were a great many orientals in those groups.
>>
>>Despite the lamentable condition of city schools in the U.S.,  the best of
>>higher education is still attractive to foreigners who can afford it.
>>
>>3) I think graduates who return to their native countries will be less
>>likely candidates for sacrificial death by terroist acts against the U.S.
>>  or
>>the U.K. than their fellows who know us only through propaganda - theirs
>>and ours.
>>
>>The same might apply to immigrants who have served in the U.S. military.
>>If, on completion of enlistment, the government would give them financial
>>assistance towards higher education,  it would benefit the U.S reputation in
>>their home countries, whether those concerned returned home or not.
>>
>>Scholarships might be more effective and far less expensive  than bombs and
>>bullets in changing the minds of young Mulslims who are likely to become
>>dupes of Bin Laden and Hamas.
>>
>>regards,
>>Hugh
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>As part of the British Govenment's disgraceful and increasingly racist
>>>behavior it has begun to think in terms of introducing policies that aim
>>>to integrate people who ask for 'citizenship' through giving
>>>integration, cultural and language lessons on Britishness.
>>>
>>>The reason this sudden departure is the ongoing orchestration of the
>>>anti-refugee/migrant issue by the state/media nexus.
>>>
>>>The notion of a community and a collective, in this case British and the
>>>British people, is always, as in every case that attempts to name and
>>>engender a community that mirrors a reactionary ideology results in a
>>>disastrous and horrible evil event, (in its 20th C extremes this was
>>>Nazism),  in this case the reactionary use of the word British or
>>>English has a single purpose to persecute and oppress those who live in
>>>the UK under the completely arbitrary naming of them as refugees and
>>>migrants.
>>>
>>>For this reason I am rethinking t
>>>he issue of 'difference' I think i/we
>>>have been wrong to begin to abandon the concept as not useful...
>>>
>>>regards
>>>sdv