Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

i guess the FBI must be banging their heads in the keyboard thinking they were onto hot trail of al qaida by the looks of how this post started.

Bora Bora, my gay friends in Canada wouldn't be offended if called "Queer". In the US and UK there have been shows called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Queer as Folk".

We are seriously off-topic.

Back to the original topic. I am waiting to see more news about this because it scares the crap out of me that bombs could so easily make onto any plane without detection.

yeh makes you think that with hi-fi technology around the world which can detect explosives in your bag as soon as you walk into an airport, they are still able to find bombs on the plane.

So maybe the hi-fi crap is a gimick and doesnt actually work or maybe its an inside job just like 9/11 or i guess the sniffer dogs "nosey" is not operating properly or maybe it just didnt happen at all i.e no bomb nothing, some "good" samaratan muslim tried to be clever to get a reward by tipping off that theres a bomb when there aint one!!

does the fbi/cia/m15/ queens secret service/ dhl secret service arrest people for tipping them off to wrong information??

rudeboy wrote:yeh makes you think that with hi-fi technology around the world which can detect explosives in your bag as soon as you walk into an airport, they are still able to find bombs on the plane.

PETN, the explosive substance used in these devices, is odourless, and very difficult to detect, hence wont be picked up by sniffer dogs. It's no coincidence it was put into toner cartridges - after all they would normally be filled with powder, and hence would not look unusual when x-rayed. It's the same stuff the so-called Christmas Day bomber had strapped in his y-fronts, but he had problems igniting it. That failure probably caused them to re-think their design a bit, opting for a mobile phone-type detonantion, rather than having to try and ignite the stuff with a lighter or something similar.

Powdery substances will be banned from flights next...

Damn!

Where am I going to hide my charlie now?



Knight

Hide what? Are you speaking English?

guess they gonna soon ban us humans too from flights!!

desertdudeshj wrote:Queer is a very acceptable PC term in these times. Infact queer describes something that’s more inclusive of the gray areas and not just gay. Describes an identity and not just sexual orientation.

Now move along, next.

Sorry to go back to this but I agree with Bora here, 'queer' is not a term that is PC, I work with a gay man and wouldn't dream of calling him a queer, gay yes. I would class 'queer' as being as detremental as 'Paki'. It's just not nice.

So, you asked your gay coworker if he'd be offended by that term, or you just assume he would be.

kanelli wrote:So, you asked your gay coworker if he'd be offended by that term, or you just assume he would be.

No, I wouldn't use that term out of respect to him, as I wouldn't call anyone a Paki. If I did use either one of those terms to the detriment of a colleague I would face disiplinary action.

I have looked into the use of the word "queer". Apparently it is acceptable for those who can self-identify, but outside of that, it is unacceptable. There are leftist LGBTs who use it in a self-identification way and are trying to basically make it a "legitimate" word within LBGT society, but the majority of LGBTs find it offensive. Basically a LGBT person can use it, but it would be considered unacceptable for those who cannot identify within the same meaning. For the most part it is considered offensive when used by someone outside the LBGT society.

When I was back in the states the "N" word was being used very casually by white people towards each other. It's basically a word that blacks "own" where they can use it in different forms (anger, humor) towards each other. There are few white people who would actually use the "N" word towards a black person, unless there is a strong friendship and it would not be used in a derogatory way.

Bethsmum wrote:

kanelli wrote:So, you asked your gay coworker if he'd be offended by that term, or you just assume he would be.

No, I wouldn't use that term out of respect to him, as I wouldn't call anyone a Paki. If I did use either one of those terms to the detriment of a colleague I would face disiplinary action.

Ah, so you assumed then. I never expected you to go up to the guy and say, "Hey queer, how's it going." and then wait to see if he gets pis.sed off or not.

Where I come from, we've always referred to the homos as Queers and Dykes. And we still do.

I know that today's male gays don't like to be called queers, and I usually don't call them that in the face, esp. when they happen to be big and muscly!!!!

Bora Bora wrote:I have looked into the use of the word "queer". Apparently it is acceptable for those who can self-identify, but outside of that, it is unacceptable. There are leftist LGBTs who use it in a self-identification way and are trying to basically make it a "legitimate" word within LBGT society, but the majority of LGBTs find it offensive. Basically a LGBT person can use it, but it would be considered unacceptable for those who cannot identify within the same meaning. For the most part it is considered offensive when used by someone outside the LBGT society.

When I was back in the states the "N" word was being used very casually by white people towards each other. It's basically a word that blacks "own" where they can use it in different forms (anger, humor) towards each other. There are few white people who would actually use the "N" word towards a black person, unless there is a strong friendship and it would not be used in a derogatory way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

No wonder the confusion, because it was once used as a derogatory word and is now being reclaimed. I guess it is best to avoid it unless it could be used appropriately according to sensitivities.

kanelli wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:I have looked into the use of the word "queer". Apparently it is acceptable for those who can self-identify, but outside of that, it is unacceptable. There are leftist LGBTs who use it in a self-identification way and are trying to basically make it a "legitimate" word within LBGT society, but the majority of LGBTs find it offensive. Basically a LGBT person can use it, but it would be considered unacceptable for those who cannot identify within the same meaning. For the most part it is considered offensive when used by someone outside the LBGT society.

When I was back in the states the "N" word was being used very casually by white people towards each other. It's basically a word that blacks "own" where they can use it in different forms (anger, humor) towards each other. There are few white people who would actually use the "N" word towards a black person, unless there is a strong friendship and it would not be used in a derogatory way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

No wonder the confusion, because it was once used as a derogatory word and is now being reclaimed. I guess it is best to avoid it unless it could be used appropriately according to sensitivities.

Gray area. Still derogatory as viewed by most, while being "reclaimed" by a small number.

What a queer discussion

Emirates Flight 201 coming from Dubai (was also reported as coming from Yemen) was detained and searched at JFK Airport in New York. Two packages were found on board and are being examined for possible explosive material.

With this being the subject matter how did the thread manage to drift so far????????????????????

The lowest common denominator will always define the intellectual level of the sewer...



Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:The lowest common denominator will always define the intellectual level of the sewer...



Knight

LOL! You do a lot of eye raising DK! very amusing.

But getting back on track, in the British news tonight, it has been reported that one of the bombs was 17 minutes away from being detonated. It wasn't clarified whether it was the one at the East Midlands airport or Dubai.

Holy crap, 17 minutes off. Between this and the two stories of the China airplane and Quantas A380 aircraft problems here, who knows when I'll feel like flying again. :O

Bethsmum wrote:

Dubai Knight wrote:The lowest common denominator will always define the intellectual level of the sewer...



Knight

LOL! You do a lot of eye raising DK! very amusing.

My thought was: Pfffff. Statements like that, one must always consider the source.

But getting back on track, in the British news tonight, it has been reported that one of the bombs was 17 minutes away from being detonated. It wasn't clarified whether it was the one at the East Midlands airport or Dubai.

Pretty scarey stuff.

Bethsmum wrote:

Dubai Knight wrote:The lowest common denominator will always define the intellectual level of the sewer...



Knight

LOL! You do a lot of eye raising DK! very amusing.

All home grown...



Knight

Confirmed this morning that the bomb about to explode within 17 minutes was at East Midlands airport, the one originally deemed harmless by UK Police.

Al Queda have now taken responsibility for all the bombs and now for the UPS plane which crashed in Dubai also. Very worrying indeed.

Bethsmum wrote:Confirmed this morning that the bomb about to explode within 17 minutes was at East Midlands airport, the one originally deemed harmless by UK Police.

UK police failed to detect the bomb, for sure, or got lost in translation from the Saudis tipster, but Dubai Police did far worst, they covered up the cause of the crash of the UPS plane. I said it before, Dubai cannot be trusted, they always try to censor negative news.
Maybe the inept terrorists bomb did not go off, but it smoked the cockpit bringing the plane down anyways.

Thats a bit debateable, why all this time to claim responsibilty and whats the point trying to do in a cargo plane ?

Just buy your own plane...no worries...

Ambassador wrote:Just buy your own plane...no worries...

Where's the fun in that?