NationStates Jolt Archive

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


NASHVILLE, Tenn. - It is considered polite to light a match after passing gas. But not while on a plane.

An American Airlines flight was forced to make an emergency landing Monday morning after a passenger lit a match to disguise the scent of flatulence, authorities said.

So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.

So why the emergency landing? If she was going to use the matches to blow something up, she could have done it straight away or while the plan was attempting to make this landing. If she has a bomb, they're fucked anyway so they may as well push on to where they're going..

She tried to ignite flammable gas on an aeroplane. So:


ZOMGWTFBBQ SHE'S A TERRORIST!!!!!

The title of this thread sounds like a punchline to a sexual joke.

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.

Hahahah that's deffinatly a USA thing over here in old blighty we just drop and go. Or drop and take the appluase.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.
Of course no-one was racist in that case.
The suspicious behavior cited in the report included "changing seats, stating anti-war, anti U.S.-Iraq involvement, negative comments concerning the president of the United States"
I'm certain that had they been a bunch of white priests who said GWB sucked and the Iraq was going to hell in a handbasket, fellow passengers would have complained and voiced their fears that said priests were about to blow the plane up.

Yep. Definitely no racism there.

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.

So you managed to prove here that, while whites have to have suspicious behavior to be expelled, muslims are expelled without it by, for instance, criticizing Bush.

Bravo. Can we see other shots to the foot you're capable of firing?

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.
...and your point is?

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.What's that supposed to prove though?

wait there before we go on here: lighting a match will cover up a smelly fart!?

What a stupid thing to do! A match on a plane... You wonder why she thought that if planes are 'no smoking' she could get away with it. I hate people lighting matches for smells. It just amplifies the scent, or rather makes it linger longer. What's worse though is those sprays used to cover up smells. Use one of those and the room will smell apalling for hours. Plus people spray so much that you can't avoid inhaling the stuff and that can't be good for you.

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.

Is it traditional then in america to light a match to disguise your farts? :confused:

wait there before we go on here: lighting a match will cover up a smelly fart!?

It's more stupid than that, because you may not know who farted, but then you go "oh, it's the person holding the match!"

Is it traditional then in america to light a match to disguise your farts? :confused:

No it's traditional to avoid farting in polite company, and particularly in confined spaces.

It's more stupid than that, because you may not know who farted, but then you go "oh, it's the person holding the match!"

clearly this woman is a lady of great honour willing to face up to her actions:p

Is it traditional then in america to light a match to disguise your farts? :confused:

Not when I rip one off. My S.O.P. is to let it fly, then blame someone else. It's funnier that way. :D

What a stupid thing to do! A match on a plane... You wonder why she thought that if planes are 'no smoking' she could get away with it. I hate people lighting matches for smells. It just amplifies the scent, or rather makes it linger longer. What's worse though is those sprays used to cover up smells. Use one of those and the room will smell apalling for hours. Plus people spray so much that you can't avoid inhaling the stuff and that can't be good for you.

Aren't matches banned on planes?

Aren't matches banned on planes?

Farting should be.

So why the emergency landing? If she was going to use the matches to blow something up, she could have done it straight away or while the plan was attempting to make this landing. If she has a bomb, they're fucked anyway so they may as well push on to where they're going..

Dude, it fuckin' reeked in there! They needed to air out the plane!

So you managed to prove here that, while whites have to have suspicious behavior to be expelled, muslims are expelled without it by, for instance, criticizing Bush.

Bravo. Can we see other shots to the foot you're capable of firing?

They did a lot more than criticize Bush. That's just disengenuous.

They did a lot more than criticize Bush. That's just disengenuous.

Ok, praying and criticizing Bush. Oh, and asking to be made more comfortable. One of them even asked to upgrade to 1st class! *gasp*

The closest thing they have to truly "suspcious behavior" is one uncorroborated account that one of the men pretended to be blind and the particular way in which their seats fell on the plane.

Ok, praying and criticizing Bush. Oh, and asking to be made more comfortable. One of them even asked to upgrade to 1st class! *gasp*

The closest thing they have to truly "suspcious behavior" is one uncorroborated account that one of the men pretended to be blind and the particular way in which their seats fell on the plane.

They asked for seatbelt extensions that they didn't need which they just placed on the floor at their feet when they got them. They moved to seats that they weren't assigned to. Their rhetoric was a lot stronger than just, "We don't like Bush" according to an Arabic, Muslim witness who has been quoted in the news. These guys were either trying to get kicked off on purpose to create a media event, were scouting for a terrorist attack or where going to commit one. I suspect the first. Just because all Muslims aren't terrorists or terrorist sympathizers doesn't mean that none of them are. There has been no investigation by anyone other than CAIR who has faulted the airline's behavior and I doubt it's because all of these people doing these investigations are racists.

They asked for seatbelt extensions that they didn't need which they just placed on the floor at their feet when they got them. They moved to seats that they weren't assigned to. Their rhetoric was a lot stronger than just, "We don't like Bush" according to an Arabic, Muslim witness who has been quoted in the news. These guys were either trying to get kicked off on purpose to create a media event, were scouting for a terrorist attack or where going to commit one. I suspect the first. Just because all Muslims aren't terrorists or terrorist sympathizers doesn't mean that none of them are. There has been no investigation by anyone other than CAIR who has faulted the airline's behavior and I doubt it's because all of these people doing these investigations are racists.

The point remains: Would they have been expelled, for the SAME attitudes, were they WASP?

They asked for seatbelt extensions that they didn't need which they just placed on the floor at their feet when they got them.

There is no evidence of this. They were found on the floor after the men left the plane. It could very well be that they had all intentions of adding them, but hadn't yet. They would have set them down, either on the seat or the floor, after being asked to leave the plane. It wasn't like the plane was ready to take-off before they were asked to leave.

Personally, I don't *need* seatbelt extensions, but now that I know they exist, I might very well ask for one. I'd be more comfortable with a little extra room.

Meanwhile, not all of the men asked for these.

They moved to seats that they weren't assigned to.

I've heard that claim, but it has yet to be supported. The police report on the issue doesn't mention this at all.

Their rhetoric was a lot stronger than just, "We don't like Bush" according to an Arabic, Muslim witness who has been quoted in the news.

So is mine when I get into a heated political discussion. So what?

These guys were either trying to get kicked off on purpose to create a media event, were scouting for a terrorist attack or where going to commit one. I suspect the first.

Or they were just going about their lives and things that never would have raised an alarm with a non-Muslim group suddenly did with them. If I had prayed with friends of mine before getting on a plane and then begun a heated political discussion in which I denounced Bush, even if I then asked for a seatbelt extender, I highly doubt that passengers would ask to have me removed for "suspicious behavior."

The point remains: Would they have been expelled, for the SAME attitudes, were they WASP?

Didn't they just land a plane, kick a WASP off and put her on teh no fly list for farting and lighting a match? :confused:

Didn't they just land a plane, kick a WASP off and put her on teh no fly list for farting and lighting a match? :confused:

Key words here: "Lighting a match." Not exactly the type of behavior you want on a plane, all things considered.

Didn't they just land a plane, kick a WASP off and put her on teh no fly list for farting and lighting a match? :confused:

lighting a match in a plane is more suspicious(its outright dangerous actually), then say, being fat and muslim.

There is no evidence of this. They were found on the floor after the men left the plane. It could very well be that they had all intentions of adding them, but hadn't yet.

Personally, I don't *need* seatbelt extensions, but now that I know they exist, I might very well ask for one. I'd be more comfortable with a little extra room.

Meanwhile, not all of the men asked for these.Yeah, because the other passengers are all liars as are the crew members who gave them the extensions. Also, they clearly didn't need them. One of the guys who asked for one put his weight at 280. The police report said he's more like 205. That's my size and I'm nowhere near needing one. They'd make effective weapons, though...



I've heard that claim, but it has yet to be supported. The police report on the issue doesn't mention this at all. See above.



So is mine when I get into a heated political discussion. So what?Their rhetoric didn't happen in a vacuum.



Or they were just going about their lives and things that never would have raised an alarm with a non-Muslim group suddenly did with them. If I had prayed with friends of mine before getting on a plane and then begun a heated political discussion in which I denounced Bush, even if I then asked for a seatbelt extender, I highly doubt that passengers would ask to have me removed for "suspicious behavior."

fart and light a match and see...

lighting a match in a plane is more suspicious(its outright dangerous actually), then say, being fat and muslim.

They didn't get kicked off because they were fat and Muslim. There are fat Muslims flying all over the US all the time. As we sit here posting probably. On US Air.

Yeah, because the other passengers are all liars as are the crew members who gave them the extensions.

Did the other passengers read their minds and somehow know that they had no intention of using the extenders? How about the crew members?

The only thing reported in the police report was that the extenders were found on the floor after the men had left. It was assumed that this meant they had no intention of using them.

Also, they clearly didn't need them. One of the guys who asked for one put his weight at 280. The police report said he's more like 205. That's my size and I'm nowhere near needing one. They'd make effective weapons, though...

I weigh 205 and, like I said, I'd like the extra room.

Meanwhile, you seem to be ignoring the fact that all of these men were cleared of any wrongdoing. If we aren't worried that they're going to become evil, evil terrorists and blow up planes after extra scrutiny, it would seem that "weapons" was not the point.

See above.

See above, what? There is no report of this actually being true. It has nothing to do with anyone being a liar. I have read the police report and it isn't once mentioned. A single, uncorroborated witness claims that one of the men pretended to be blind and asked someone to change seats with him (interestingly enough, there was no corroboration of this - one would expect that the person who traded seats would have been interviewed, no?). One of the attendants at the desk said that one of the men asked for an upgrade to 1st class (hardly unheard of) and was turned down.

So, in the end, there isn't a single shred of evidence that the men sat in seats they were not supposed to.

Their rhetoric didn't happen in a vacuum.

In other words, "Their rhetoric occurred while being Muslim."

fart and light a match and see...

That has nothing to do with the question. Lighting a match on a plane - pretty much an undeniably dangerous action, is rather different than the situation I described.

If you saw a bunch of people holding hands and praying, and then they got into a heated discussion about Bush, would you ask the flight attendants to have them removed because they made you nervous?

Note that the action taken against these 6 men was prompted by such a request from a passenger.

lighting a match in a plane is more suspicious(its outright dangerous actually), then say, being fat and muslim.

Lighting a match on a plane is very dangerous. You can tell by all those planes that came falling out of the sky back when they allowed smoking on planes. It's a wonder they never connected the lighting of matches with the almost daily crashing of jumbo jets all through the 50s, 60, 70 and much of the 80s. I happen to find a 200 pound man spouting anti US rhetoric, sitting in the wrong seat and asking for a seat belt extension much more suspicious.

Is it traditional then in america to light a match to disguise your farts? :confused:

I've never heard of it before....

Lighting a match on a plane is very dangerous.

Much more dangerous than lighting a match off of a plane (with the exception of next to a fuel tank or something like that).

I happen to find a 200 pound man spouting anti US rhetoric, sitting in the wrong seat and asking for a seat belt extension much more suspicious.

Anti-Bush rhetoric is anti-US rhetoric now?

And you have yet to provide any evidence at all of the "sitting in the wrong seat" accusation, despite the fact that the police report didn't detail any such action and the men were found to be no threat to the airline.

They didn't get kicked off because they were fat and Muslim. There are fat Muslims flying all over the US all the time. As we sit here posting probably. On US Air.

How many of these planes have they hijacked and flown into buildings exactly?

I've never heard of it before....

Never heard of it in england...

Much more dangerous than lighting a match off of a plane (with the exception of next to a fuel tank or something like that).

Anti-Bush rhetoric is anti-US rhetoric now?

And you have yet to provide any evidence at all of the "sitting in the wrong seat" accusation, despite the fact that the police report didn't detail any such action and the men were found to be no threat to the airline.

Yeah, this will be the work of the democrats :rolleyes: As far as i can see they wern't doing anything wrong, they hate bush, and a few of them asked for seatbelt extenders... how exactly are they terrorists?

Did the other passengers read their minds and somehow know that they had no intention of using the extenders? How about the crew members?

The only thing reported in the police report was that the extenders were found on the floor after the men had left. It was assumed that this meant they had no intention of using them.



I weigh 205 and, like I said, I'd like the extra room.What airline do you use? Cause that's how big I am and I can have as much room as I want in the belts on any plane I've ever been on. The seat belts are made to wrap around people much bigger than you or I.

Meanwhile, you seem to be ignoring the fact that all of these men were cleared of any wrongdoing. If we aren't worried that they're going to become evil, evil terrorists and blow up planes after extra scrutiny, it would seem that "weapons" was not the point.They didn't break any laws but, fortunately, you don't have to to be removed from an airplane. I doubt any charges will be filed against the farting woman, either, and I have no problem with her being removed from the plane.



See above, what? There is no report of this actually being true. It has nothing to do with anyone being a liar. I have read the police report and it isn't once mentioned. A single, uncorroborated witness claims that one of the men pretended to be blind and asked someone to change seats with him (interestingly enough, there was no corroboration of this - one would expect that the person who traded seats would have been interviewed, no?). One of the attendants at the desk said that one of the men asked for an upgrade to 1st class (hardly unheard of) and was turned down.

So, in the end, there isn't a single shred of evidence that the men sat in seats they were not supposed to.My point is that in order for you to think they didn't sit in seats that they werent' supposed to, didn't ask for seat belt extensions that they didn't need and didn't use and weren't generally behaving in ways that would have seemed suspicious to anyone else you have to believe that the flight crew and all teh passengers who applauded as they were removed are all lying racists. I don't buy that.



In other words, "Their rhetoric occurred while being Muslim."No and you know that's not what I meant - or you're so focused on defending the puppy loving, bunny saving Muslims that you see racism everywhere. My point is that if they weren't also sitting in the wrong seats, spouting teh rhetoric, asking for seat belt extensions, ignoring requests to return to their assigned seats all at the same time then having a political discussion probably wouldn't have registered with anyone - particularily in an environment of 30% approval ratings for the president in question.



That has nothing to do with the question. Lighting a match on a plane - pretty much an undeniably dangerous action, is rather different than the situation I described.It's not dangerous as decades of smoking on planes can attest to and far less suspicious because, short of a bomb in your shoe, a match is a pretty piss poor weapon.

If you saw a bunch of people holding hands and praying, and then they got into a heated discussion about Bush, would you ask the flight attendants to have them removed because they made you nervous?If that's all they did, no.

Note that the action taken against these 6 men was prompted by such a request from a passenger.Passengers...

Also note that their lawyer had a statment ready in about two hours. That's pretty quick... almost prescient.

How many of these planes have they hijacked and flown into buildings exactly?

Maybe I'm missing the point of the question... :confused:

beans ....beans ...they are good for yor heart !


The more you eat the more you get thrown off American Airline's !



FART



Excuse me hon we gotta talk about this ummm fart problem you have ,,,:D :p

I would hat to just be the one who flatulated on a plane...

What airline do you use? Cause that's how big I am and I can have as much room as I want in the belts on any plane I've ever been on. The seat belts are made to wrap around people much bigger than you or I.

They didn't break any laws but, fortunately, you don't have to to be removed from an airplane. I doubt any charges will be filed against the farting woman, either, and I have no problem with her being removed from the plane.



My point is that in order for you to think they didn't sit in seats that they werent' supposed to, didn't ask for seat belt extensions that they didn't need and didn't use and weren't generally behaving in ways that would have seemed suspicious to anyone else you have to believe that the flight crew and all teh passengers who applauded as they were removed are all lying racists. I don't buy that.



No and you know that's not what I meant - or you're so focused on defending the puppy loving, bunny saving Muslims that you see racism everywhere. My point is that if they weren't also sitting in the wrong seats, spouting teh rhetoric, asking for seat belt extensions, ignoring requests to return to their assigned seats all at the same time then having a political discussion probably wouldn't have registered with anyone - particularily in an environment of 30% approval ratings for the president in question.



It's not dangerous as decades of smoking on planes can attest to and far less suspicious because, short of a bomb in your shoe, a match is a pretty piss poor weapon.

If that's all they did, no.

Passengers...

Also note that their lawyer had a statment ready in about two hours. That's pretty quick... almost prescient.


I change my seats all the time. Seatbelt extensions arent very good as weapons and you still have yet to prove that they were uneeded. Maybe there's an islamic law about not allowing seat belts to be beyond a certain tightness. I know that there isn't but I doubt that you do. I also spout anti-bush rhetoric all the time. And of course no terrorist would dream of using a shoe bomb. What a stupid idea.

And of course no terrorist would dream of using a shoe bomb. What a stupid idea.

Perhaps my sarcasm detector is broken, but I think your being serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Colvin_Reid_%28British_man%29

I change my seats all the time. Seatbelt extensions arent very good as weapons and you still have yet to prove that they were uneeded. Maybe there's an islamic law about not allowing seat belts to be beyond a certain tightness. I know that there isn't but I doubt that you do. I also spout anti-bush rhetoric all the time. And of course no terrorist would dream of using a shoe bomb. What a stupid idea.

I don't need to prove that they didn't need them. I've been on enough planes to know that a 200 pound guy doesn't need one. I can take a standard seatbelt on a plane and put it on loose enough to stand up. I also just don't think teh flight crew and the othr passengers are all lying racists. White people, brown people, black people... all kinds of people have been thrown off of flights since 9/11 and not just in America for less.

And if you don't think a rope with a heavy metal object attached at one end makes a significant weapon you're high. You are also focusing in on the anti-Bush rhetoric, as you can probably see from my signature I spout anti-Bush rhetoric all the time as well. I think he's the worst president in history. They were talking about more than just Bush. But I've made jokes about bombs and going postal at work as well. Wouldn't do it at the airport, though.

The entire plane erupted into applause when they were removed. I doubt it's because they are all a bunch of racist liers. Three independent reports didn't make that assesment. I'm sure that all those people really were afraid because of these people's behavior and, again, Muslims fly all over the US every day and they're not all getting kicked off of planes. I think this was a setup. I think that the fact that the lawyer was in front of the cameras just two hours after the fact stinks. You guys all keep saying, "Prove that they weren't going to use the extensions" and "prove that they left their seats." An airplane isn't a court of law and if you applied that standard to every flight no one would ever be able to be removed from a flight and, clearly, we live in a world where airlines have to be allowed some discretion in these kinds of instances. You know what I'd like for you to prove? Prove that there were no other Muslims on the plane that weren't removed. I'll bet there were at least a few. I'll bet they also aplauded.

You guys all keep saying, "Prove that they weren't going to use the extensions" and "prove that they left their seats." An airplane isn't a court of law and if you applied that standard to every flight no one would ever be able to be removed from a flight and, clearly

So we should just go hearsay and the word of some random guy on the internet? No thanks, I prefer facts.

So we should just go hearsay and the word of some random guy on the internet? No thanks, I prefer facts.

It's not hearsay. It's what the passengers on the plane and the flight crew said they witnessed. Hearsay would be if some guy at the airport reported the incident because he heard it from the flight crew. The incidents with the seat belts, the moving to different seats and the refusal to go back to their assigned seats as well as the rhetoric were reported by witnesses.

So we should just go hearsay and the word of some random guy on the internet? No thanks, I prefer facts.

"We talked with crew members and passengers and those on the ground. We've done what we typically do in a situation where there is a removal or some kind of customer service at issue," Miss Rader said. "We found out the facts are substantially the same, and the imams were detained because of the concerns crew members had based on the behavior they observed, and from reports by the customers." That's not hearsay.

That's not hearsay.

The Passengers ruling is not what is in question, the soundness of their judgment is.

What airline do you use? Cause that's how big I am and I can have as much room as I want in the belts on any plane I've ever been on. The seat belts are made to wrap around people much bigger than you or I.

I've used several. Delta and Northwest both come to mind. I've never in my adult life been comfortable in a plane seat and seatbelt. They just weren't made to accomodate my hips, that's for sure.

They didn't break any laws but, fortunately, you don't have to to be removed from an airplane.

They weren't at all suspicious. It isn't a matter of what laws they could or could not be shown to have broken. They were all found to be perfectly safe to fly on airplanes.

I doubt any charges will be filed against the farting woman, either, and I have no problem with her being removed from the plane.

Depending on the laws regarding fires and airplanes, she just might. They generally aren't going to ground an airplane for something they don't consider a major offence.

My point is that in order for you to think they didn't sit in seats that they werent' supposed to, didn't ask for seat belt extensions that they didn't need and didn't use and weren't generally behaving in ways that would have seemed suspicious to anyone else you have to believe that the flight crew and all teh passengers who applauded as they were removed are all lying racists. I don't buy that.

You wouldn't have to believe any such thing. In fact, you have to greatly add to their statements to come up with all of that.

No and you know that's not what I meant - or you're so focused on defending the puppy loving, bunny saving Muslims that you see racism everywhere. My point is that if they weren't also sitting in the wrong seats, spouting teh rhetoric, asking for seat belt extensions, ignoring requests to return to their assigned seats

Now you've added yet another allegation that wasn't listed in the police report or officially stated by anyone.

There is nothing at all in the police report about them being in the wrong seats or ignoring requests to return to assigned seats. In fact, the police report is clear that they were completely cooperative.

And I simply don't see one or two guys asking for seatbelt extensions as a suspicious action.

The passenger who prompted the action against them by giving a note to an attendant wouldn't have known most of this anyways. She saw them pray and then heard what she interpreted as anti-Bush statements. ((In fact, none of the accounts are clear that any such statements were made. They heard Bush's name, something about Saddam being killed, and what was possibly cursing under their breath. However, all but one of the witnesses claim that they didn't know what was being said, as most of it was not in English. They assumed that it was anti-Bush rhetoric.

It's not dangerous as decades of smoking on planes can attest to and far less suspicious because, short of a bomb in your shoe, a match is a pretty piss poor weapon.

It's not dangerous because they used to do it? I guess driving around without your seatbelt isn't dangerous, either? It isn't dangerous to put asbestos in walls?

f that's all they did, no.

And yet that is all the passenger who prompted this action saw.

Passengers...

Incorrect. One passenger handed a flight attendant a note saying they were making her nervous. The rest of the passenger information came afterwards, when everyone was removed from the plane and questioned.

Also note that their lawyer had a statment ready in about two hours. That's pretty quick... almost prescient.

Not really. Two hours is pretty slow, actually, for a statement as easy to write as this.

I also just don't think teh flight crew and the othr passengers are all lying racists.

No one is saying that they are lying. You are, however, attributing comments to them that they didn't make, at least not in the police report in which official statements were taken.

They were talking about more than just Bush.

Were they? The witness who claimed they were being anti-Bush heard Bush's name, something about killing Saddam, and some curses. No one seems to know what it was they were talking about, other than that they think it was anti-Bush.

The entire plane erupted into applause when they were removed.

I doubt it, considering that everyone else was removed from the plane as well and they were all delayed because of the action taken against the imans. There's also the little issue that this wasn't reported or mentioned by anyone in the report.

You just keep adding unsubstantiated claims, don't you?

I doubt it's because they are all a bunch of racist liers.

I do, too. But I have no doubt whatsoever that bias against Muslims was involved.

I'm sure that all those people really were afraid because of these people's behavior

....because of their own view of Muslims and fear of Muslims.

I think this was a setup. I think that the fact that the lawyer was in front of the cameras just two hours after the fact stinks.

If I employed a lawyer at all, I would expect them to be involved in any legal action even quicker than that.

You guys all keep saying, "Prove that they weren't going to use the extensions" and "prove that they left their seats."

It's pretty stupid to make those claims with no evidence that they are true, especially when neither claim is made in the official report of the incident.

It's not hearsay. It's what the passengers on the plane and the flight crew said they witnessed.

Where? They didn't say it in the statements they gave for the official police report. As I said, there is one completely uncorroborated statement that one of the imans was pretending to be blind to try and get someone to switch seats with him (behavior that, if true, you would expect to be backed up by at least one other person). Other than that, there isn't a single statement that the imans changed seats. The flight attendants didn't say it and the policemen reporting didn't say it.

The flight attendants who found the seatbelt extensions found them on the floor after the imans had been asked to leave the plane. It isn't as if anyone saw them (or said they saw them) take the extensions and immediately place them on the floor with no intention of using them.

Your problem is that you are claiming that things were said by these witnesses that simply weren't said, at least not in the official report. And if they later said them to the press, I'd have to wonder why they kept that information out of their original statements.

Hearsay would be if some guy at the airport reported the incident because he heard it from the flight crew. The incidents with the seat belts, the moving to different seats and the refusal to go back to their assigned seats as well as the rhetoric were reported by witnesses.

Where did they report it? To whom? Why would they leave it out of their official statements?

That's not hearsay.

Who is Miss Rader? She obviously isn't one of the witnesses. She isn't one of the officers called to the scene.

Sounds pretty much like hearsay to me, considering that she wasn't a part of the proceedings at all.

Okay, here's my position. The passengers on teh plane and the flight crew were alarmed enough by these people's behavior that they wanted them off the plane. I am unaware of any passenger on that plane that has come out since the incident that has said anything other than that they were glad they were removed. Not one. Three seperate reports by three seperate agencies who interviewed the imams, the passengers who witnessed the behavior and the flight crew all found that the airline and it's employees acted responsibly and did what was right in this situation. Muslims fly in the US all the time and things like this don't happen often at all and, when they do, happen to many people who are not Muslim. All of this leads me to the conclusion that this was not an act of racism, but prudent caution.

I seriously doubt the farting lady meant anyone any harm, either. I also doubt that the vast majority of people who have been kicked off of planes or who have forced early landings were terrorists, but in this kind of situation, air travel, there needs to be a certain standard of behavior that people need to observe because of the popularity of the target and because of how dangerous an airplane can be. For example, you can't make a joke about being a terrorist or having a bomb at an airport. You'll not be allowed on your flight and you'll probably be detained.

I'm sure the vast majority of people who have made these kind of comments had no intention of ever harming anyone, but they behaved in a way that can't be tolerated. Someone needs to have discretion in these matters and, until we militarize our airplanes, something I think you'd agree is a bad idea, the people best suited to make these kinds of calls are the pilots and the flight crew. In this case I'll go with their assessment.

Who is Miss Rader? She obviously isn't one of the witnesses. She isn't one of the officers called to the scene.

Sounds pretty much like hearsay to me, considering that she wasn't a part of the proceedings at all.

She was the representative who presented the findings of the airline's investigation. The point was that their investigation, which concluded that their emplyees acted responsible, wasn't based on hearsay. The investigators spoke directly with the imams, the other passengers and the flight crew. At least read the article in the OP. It's pretty short and it's from the Washinton Post not The Standard.

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.
The worst part about all of this is that the whole match thing is a myth, as proven on Mythbusters.

*snip*

In radio interviews I have heard since the incident with passengers on teh plane the seatbelts were brought up. In one interview teh lady who passed the not to the crew said all the passengers were talking and one of them spoke Arabic and told them some of what she heard them say. Maybe one lady passed the note to the crew, but from what I understand it was because all the people aropund her agreed it needed to be done. In anycase, do you have a link to the police report? because I doubt all that is not in it. Certainly they did not remove these people from the plane because one person complained that she saw them praying. From the news coverage I have heard teh passengers were pretty unanimous. I have also yet to hear a passenger come out in defense of the Imams.

In radio interviews I have heard since the incident with passengers on teh plane the seatbelts were brought up. In one interview teh lady who passed the not to the crew said all the passengers were talking and one of them spoke Arabic and told them some of what she heard them say. Maybe one lady passed the note to the crew, but from what I understand it was because all the people aropund her agreed it needed to be done. In anycase, do you have a link to the police report? because I doubt all that is not in it. Certainly they did not remove these people from the plane because one person complained that she saw them praying. From the news coverage I have heard teh passengers were pretty unanimous. I have also yet to hear a passenger come out in defense of the Imams.

It was linked in a recent thread. I'll see if I can find it again.

Edit: Here it is
http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice%20Report.pdf

Secret Service agents questioned the imams, who are accused of making negative comments about President Bush and the Iraq war. Officials of the Transportation Security Administration were involved in screening the imams and their baggage.

W.

T.

F.

Is that a crime now? Did they rescind freedom of speech and I missed it?

On them not sitting in their seats:

A passenger who had seen them pray passed a note expressing concern to a flight attendant, US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader told The Associated Press.

The passenger thought the imams -- who were speaking in Arabic and English -- had made anti-U.S. statements before boarding and "made similar statements while boarding," said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

Once on board, Knocke said, the six split up into groups of two and did not sit in their assigned seats.

On seat belt extenders and refusing to leave their seats:

Police were called after the captain and airport security workers asked the men to leave the plane and the men refused, Rader told the AP.

Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, told the AP the airline asked airport police to remove the six men from the flight because some witnesses reported the men were making anti-American statements involving the Iraq war.

Hogan said one of the imams asked to change seats once inside the cabin and another requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it and that in general "there was some peculiar behavior."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/

As for the seatbelt extensions and them not needing them not being in the police report, you must have missed it when you read it.

Detailed accounts of the incident varied. Witnesses, including a number of passengers and US Airways employees, said they heard some of the men making anti-American remarks and chanting “Allah,” first as they boarded the plane and then when led off, Mr. Hogan said.

Others said the men behaved strangely once on board, with some asking for seat belt extensions, the police report said. “I did not see they actually needed them,” one flight attendant wrote in a statement given to the police. “They were not overweight

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html?ex=1165554000&en=4f28019dcc243d3d&ei=5070

On them not sitting in their seats:

And yet it isn't in the police report. It may be stated here, but don't you think that would be an important piece of information to be included in the police report? The police even list the exact seats the men were sitting in, and yet never mention the apparent "fact" that they were not sitting in the correct seats.

http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice%20Report.pdf

On seat belt extenders and refusing to leave their seats:

And yet, there is nothing in the police report about them being asked to leave and refusing. Again, seems strange, doesn't it? The police arrive, ask them to leave, and they immediately comply with total cooperation. None of the witness statements mention them being asked to leave and refusing, or being asked to change seats and refusing.

As for the seatbelt extensions and them not needing them not being in the police report, you must have missed it when you read it.

I never claimed that the seatbelt extensions were not in the police report. In fact, I specifically stated that they were - and that the attendant's report of finding them on the floor was included.

What I contested was the immediate assumption that, because they were not yet connected, they were meant as weapons. I've seen it take quite a while for a person to get settled and in their seat, ready for take-off. And these men were asked to leave before that time came.

Regarding the ORIGINAL topic: everyone knows you don't light a match near a gas leak! :D

wait there before we go on here: lighting a match will cover up a smelly fart!?
Well she could always claim that she was carrying catfish bait :rolleyes:

See how things work? This stupid woman managed to be banned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16064706/)from American Airlines because of ... well, stupidity.


So it goes. People that do illegal things or behave in a suspicious manner are going to be singled out for additional attention.

Oh, and the Minnesota Six? US Airways has been found to have acted properly in three parallel investigations (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061205-112831-5995r.htm). And what's worse? None of the six were found to be victims of racism.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!:p

What's that supposed to prove though?

It's supposed to prove that since one white idiot was yanked from a plane for being an asshat, that no anti-Muslim discrimination takes place. :rolleyes:

As for the seatbelt extensions and them not needing them not being in the police report, you must have missed it when you read it.



To be fair, three of them weighed about 200, 230, and 250, which would be enough for a seatbelt extender to be more comfortable then just leaving the seatbelt alone.
And you know, nobody ever said that they had actually WORN THEIR SEATBELTS at the time they were led off the plane, and of course if some of them felt they needed seatbelt extenders they're going to wear their seatbelts as little as possible.

BTW, to test if this is suspicious behavior:
Does Pat Robinson get kicked off planes regularly? Because he probably spouts more random shit per minute then these guys did during the whole incident.

To PsychoticDan:
You're being very disingenious with your statements. You keep refering to 'seatbelt extensions', 'them not needing them' , 'them not sitting in their seats' and so on.
Which implies that several of them asked for seatbelt extensions and several of them tried to moving about the plane - which does sound suspicious.(though one would wonder why they hadn't book seperate seats in the first place had they wanted to actually do something yet not draw any suspicion on themselves beforehand, but I digress)

Yet the report you quoted had this to say:
one of the imams asked to change seats once inside the cabin and another requested an extender to make his seat belt larger
Thus out of 6 people, ONE of them asked if he could be moved and ONE of them asked for a seatbelt extension.
Not all six of them, just TWO asking for different things. Different, yet completely normal things people ask for on planes all the time.

Which just makes your replies nad constant use of the plural look as if you're creating an issue and supporting your premise through hyperbole.


For the Iman who wanted an extension even though he was only 200 pounds - how tall was he? At 6', 200lbs ain't that heavy. At 5'4" then he'd have a gut and a half on him. And how do we know that his seat's belt wasn't faulty? I've had ones where it's seized up and won't extend.
And one Iman didn't like his seat - so what? Like no-one's ever asked if they could be moved before. I did when I flew from NZ to HK once cause the guy who sat next to me was a fatty. At 6'3" & 240lb I'm already being squashed in an economy seat, so the last thing I need is having some fat lump sweating next to me for 12 hours. So first thing I did when he sat down was ask the flight attendant if there were any free seats elsewhere. Thankfully there were.
Guess this suspicious behaviour makes me a candidate for Homeland Security's blacklist.

What's that supposed to prove though?

Glad to see I am not the only one who could not find the link between the two.....

Lighting a match is forbidden on a commercial airliner. Also, they didn't know that it was just a woman covering her farts until they landed. They landed because they smelled smoke and as a pilot, let me tell you. When you smell smoke at Flight Level 300 (30,000 feet) It would be foolish not to land. This woman interfered with the normal operation of this aircraft by lighting a match, so yea, she should be banned. I am siding with American Airlines on this one.

Old ladies are always doing something stupid. They are above the law.
Most people pay no attention to them until they are running over kids at a bus stop or driving through a business that has no drive thru facilities.