NationStates Jolt Archive

Muslims pulled from flight may sue passengers


Lawyers step up to defend fliers who voiced concerns; chilling effect feared
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:37 p.m. ET March 30, 2007
MINNEAPOLIS - Six Muslim men removed from a plane last fall after being accused of suspicious behavior are suing the airline and threatening to sue the passengers who complained — a move some fear could discourage travelers from speaking up when they see something unusual.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed earlier this month, has so alarmed some lawyers that they are offering to defend the unnamed “John Doe” passengers free of charge. They say it is vital that the flying public be able to report suspicious behavior without fear of being dragged into court.

“When you drive up the road towards the airport, there’s a big road sign that says, ‘Report suspicious behavior,”’ said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer. “There’s no disclaimer that adds, ‘But beware if you do that, you might get sued.”’

The six imams were taken off a Phoenix-bound US Airways flight on Nov. 20 while returning home from a conference of Islamic clerics in Minneapolis.

Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.

The plane was cleared for a security sweep, nothing was found, and the jet took off without the imams.

The Muslim clerics say they were humiliated, and are seeking unspecified damages from the airline, the Minneapolis airport and, potentially, the John Does.

Omar Mohammedi, the New York City attorney for the imams, said the intent is not to go after passengers who raise valid concerns about security. But he suggested some passengers may have acted in bad faith out of prejudice.

“As an attorney, I have seen a lot of abuse by the general public when it comes to members of the community creating stories that do not exist,” Mohammedi said.

He denied the imams were talking about Saddam, and said that their seats were assigned and that they requested extenders because their seat belts didn’t fit.


Some fear such lawsuits could weaken what has become the first line of defense against terrorism since Sept. 11 — an alert public. At airports and train and subway stations around the country, travelers are routinely warned to watch for unattended bags and suspicious activity and to notify authorities.

Ellen Howe, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees security at all U.S. airports, would not comment specifically on the imams’ lawsuit. But she said the TSA counts on passengers to help the agency do its job.

“‘See something, say something’ is certainly a common mantra in this day and age,” Howe said. “We would always remind passengers to be both vigilant and thoughtful.”


In reaction to the imams’ lawsuit, Congress has taken steps to legally protect passengers who report suspicious activity. Earlier this week, the House approved an amendment to a rail transportation security bill that would make passengers immune from such lawsuits, unless they say something they know is false.

Mohammedi said he has not yet identified any of the complaining passengers. An airport police report listed a passenger and two US Airways employees as complaining about the imams. All three had their names blacked out before the lawsuit was filed by invoking a Minnesota law that allows it, airport spokesman Pat Hogan said.

Nolting said he has been contacted by several potential John Does.

Passenger Pat Snelson, who lives in a Twin Cities suburb, said he and his wife were not among those who reported suspicious behavior. But he said his wife noticed the men praying, and he saw them moving around the cabin while others were boarding.


“These guys were up to no good,” Snelson said. “We think the airport people did a real good job in taking care of it.”

Bomb-sniffing dogs examined the men and their baggage. FBI agents and other federal law enforcement officers questioned the men for several hours before releasing them.

Billie Vincent, a former director of security for the Federal Aviation Administration, said he is troubled by the mere attempt to identify the passengers who raised concerns.

Airline passengers “are your eyes and your ears,” said Vincent, who now owns an aviation security company. “If attorneys can get those names and sue them, you put a chilling effect on the whole system.”


© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874497/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874497/)

I hope these Imams win. The only reason I can see for their removal is that they were discriminated against. Even if they did criticise the US, and talk about Saddam, they did nothing wrong. How dare people humiliate them in this way.

I hope these Imams win. The only reason I can see for their removal is that they were discriminated against. Even if they did criticise the US, and talk about Saddam, they did nothing wrong. How dare people humiliate them in this way.

Basically it's the "All Muslims are terrorists with Bin Ladin on Speed Dial" theory of airline security.

Boarding an airplane is a priviledge, not a right. Behave, or don't fly. It applies to everyone. I'd be more surprised if people on planes were NOT paranoid.

Basically it's the "All Muslims are terrorists with Bin Ladin on Speed Dial" theory of airline security.

It appears to be the prevalent form at the moment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874497/

they are suing US Airways.. and the Airport Authorities..
they are Not suing the passengers.

"may" "potentially" etc.. are spin words.

Boarding an airplane is a priviledge, not a right. Behave, or don't fly. It applies to everyone. I'd be more surprised if people on planes were NOT paranoid.

I agree with you. However, I fail to see how these gentlemen who were humiliated and removed, were in fact, behaving in anything less than a normal, appropriate manner.

I agree with you. However, I fail to see how these gentlemen who were humiliated and removed, were in fact, behaving in anything less than a normal, appropriate manner.

Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.

This is normal?

I agree with you. However, I fail to see how these gentlemen who were humiliated and removed, were in fact, behaving in anything less than a normal, appropriate manner.

They were misbehaving by being Muslim of course!

This is normal?

This is misbehaving?

This is normal?

Omar Mohammedi, the New York City attorney for the imams, said the intent is not to go after passengers who raise valid concerns about security. But he suggested some passengers may have acted in bad faith out of prejudice.

“As an attorney, I have seen a lot of abuse by the general public when it comes to members of the community creating stories that do not exist,” Mohammedi said.

He denied the imams were talking about Saddam, and said that their seats were assigned and that they requested extenders because their seat belts didn’t fit.

Just for the record, Christians praying on flights make me uncomfortable and a little nervous.

They were misbehaving by being Muslim of course!

How foolish of me. Why did I not see it. Muslims aren't allowed to fly, or sit in the front of the bus, or drink from the same taps as Jesus-fearing Christian folk. They might start wearing headscarves and launching Jihad. :p

("the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States")
This is normal?if speaking about Saddam and Cursing the US are enough to Ground you.. and call you a-normal.

then a lot of us (NSG playa).. are a-normal.

This is normal?
For Muslims? Yes.
For Muslims who saw through the Iraq war also? Yes

if speaking about Saddam and Cursing the US are enough to Ground you.. and call you a-normal.

then a lot of us (NSG playa).. are a-normal.

Good point.

I say sue them.

Some ignorants dont even know muslims are suposed to pray 5 times/day, AT LEAST.

if speaking about Saddam and Cursing the US are enough to Ground you.. and call you a-normal.

then a lot of us (NSG playa).. are a-normal.

Especialy when you consider the fact that saying "Saddam was eaten by wild boars and the world is glad to be rid of him" falls under the heading of "speaking about Saddam".

I am not surprised these people on the plane got nervous. These guys were acting strange to them. I am a Muslim myself and also speak Arabic. I would have probably figured out what they were doing. However the other passengers would have not known. If I were on the flight I probably would have asked them what they were doing moving about like they were if I felt it was suspicious. I fly a lot and have flown on hundreds of flights. I do not recall on any of those people behaving as these fellows did. So I don't think the airlines overreacted based on what I have heard of the story. They have a right to sue but I believe it won't hold up in court.

I am not surprised these people on the plane got nervous. These guys were acting strange to them. I am a Muslim myself and also speak Arabic. I would have probably figured out what they were doing. However the other passengers would have not known. If I were on the flight I probably would have asked them what they were doing moving about like they were if I felt it was suspicious. I fly a lot and have flown on hundreds of flights. I do not recall on any of those people behaving as these fellows did. So I don't think the airlines overreacted based on what I have heard of the story. They have a right to sue but I believe it won't hold up in court.

Read the article again. The lawyer for the imams has said that they were not doing half the things the passengers accused them of. Furthermore, if you were traveling in a group which for reasons of necessity were separated on the flight, are you saying you would totally ignore your friends for the whole trip to avoid looking suspicious? I know when I flew to Japan with my school and to Perth with my sporting team, we were separated. But at every opportunity, we moved around to converse. Should our school or our team have been thrown off the plane and accused of terrorism? Do you think we would be?

Boarding an airplane is a priviledge, not a right. Behave, or don't fly. It applies to everyone. I'd be more surprised if people on planes were NOT paranoid.

Very true. Since 9-11 I take a minute when I board flights to scan the group for anything strange. Maybe that is my paranoia but better safe then sorry. Also as you stated boarding a commercial flight is a privilege that can be taken away. If one is to drunk they wont let them board the plane. Once I seen a couple arguing loudly for awhile while sitting in the boarding area. Airport security was called and from my understanding they were told to take a later flight after they cooled down.

Very true. Since 9-11 I take a minute when I board flights to scan the group for anything strange. Maybe that is my paranoia but better safe then sorry. Also as you stated boarding a commercial flight is a privilege that can be taken away. If one is to drunk they wont let them board the plane. Once I seen a couple arguing loudly for awhile while sitting in the boarding area. Airport security was called and from my understanding they were told to take a later flight after they cooled down.

Yes, it's a priveledge, not a right. Like many things.

For example, working at a job is a priveledge, not a right. Therefore I should be free to fire any employees that I think may be homosexuals. Or if they're women. Or part of an ethnic group I don't like. You know, there's this one guy, and I think he's Jewish. Therefore I can fire him, because hey, working at my place is a priveledge, not a right. Correct? You would agree with this line of argumentation?

Read the article again. The lawyer for the imams has said that they were not doing half the things the passengers accused them of. Furthermore, if you were traveling in a group which for reasons of necessity were separated on the flight, are you saying you would totally ignore your friends for the whole trip to avoid looking suspicious? I know when I flew to Japan with my school and to Perth with my sporting team, we were separated. But at every opportunity, we moved around to converse. Should our school or our team have been thrown off the plane and accused of terrorism? Do you think we would be?


I read this article and saw the news coverage when it happened. Of course the lawyer is going to say his clients did nothing. That is what a lawyer is suppose to do. Also your scenerio that you are talking of kids walking about. This happens on most flights that have school groups. Kids are not a percieved threat.
I would have wondered what this group was up to myself. However it was a group of muslim men that crashed 4 planes on 9-11. They are going to be looked at more then any other group. That is a fact that Muslims have to remember. If this were Japanese in WWII I would understand it to.

Article
Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.

This is normal?

The long answer: Personally, I generally say a little prayer when I get on airplanes. Granted, I generally do so under my breath and in English rather than out loud and in Arabic, but since those latter qualities can reasonably be filed under "things that millions and millions of people do," I think we can safely call them "normal." Next, we have "speaking of Saddam Hussein and cursing the United States." I and most of my friends have been known both to speak of Saddam Hussein ("Boy, that Saddam Hussein sure was an evil dictator!") and even to say things which could be construed as "cursing the United States." ("Boy, the United States sure royally fucked up the Iraq war!") Pretty normal comments, really, seeing as the majority of Americans would agree with both statements. Then of course, there are the requests for seat-belt extenders - a request which a great many overweight people regularly make. Hmm, is being overweight in America fairly normal, or terribly shocking and unheard-of? You tell me. And then, of course, there's my very favorite accusation - they were "moving about and conferring during boarding." Oh, MAN! Those filthy Muslims talked to each other! While moving! How horribly abnormal!

The short answer: Yes. :p

Yes, it's a priveledge, not a right. Like many things.

For example, working at a job is a priveledge, not a right. Therefore I should be free to fire any employees that I think may be homosexuals. Or if they're women. Or part of an ethnic group I don't like. You know, there's this one guy, and I think he's Jewish. Therefore I can fire him, because hey, working at my place is a priveledge, not a right. Correct? You would agree with this line of argumentation?


There are laws that protect workers to an extent. However in most states you can fire people for anything. I employ people myself. I have fired people for a variety of things. Normally I tell them why but I don't have to.
What your talking about is they were booted only because they were Muslim. Just maybe it was because of there behavior. How about that? Muslims fly every single day on American carriers without incident. So why is this one different? I would say it was because of the groups behavior.

The long answer: Personally, I generally say a little prayer when I get on airplanes. Granted, I generally do so under my breath and in English rather than out loud and in Arabic, but since those latter qualities can reasonably be filed under "things that millions and millions of people do," I think we can safely call them "normal." Next, we have "speaking of Saddam Hussein and cursing the United States." I and most of my friends have been known both to speak of Saddam Hussein ("Boy, that Saddam Hussein sure was an evil dictator!") and even to say things which could be construed as "cursing the United States." ("Boy, the United States sure royally fucked up the Iraq war!") Pretty normal comments, really, seeing as the majority of Americans would agree with both statements. Then of course, there are the requests for seat-belt extenders - a request which a great many overweight people regularly make. Hmm, is being overweight in America fairly normal, or terribly shocking and unheard-of? You tell me. And then, of course, there's my very favorite accusation - they were "moving about and conferring during boarding." Oh, MAN! Those filthy Muslims talked to each other! While moving! How horribly abnormal!

The short answer: Yes. :p

Yeah see, that's what I wanted to say.

There are laws that protect workers to an extent.

But those laws are not constitutional Rights. Therefore... you disagree with them?

I mean laws are a priviledge, not a right.


What your talking about is they were booted only because they were Muslim.

It doesn't matter. Your argument is that because flying is a priviledge, and not a right, they can be booted for any and all reasons and it is always acceptable, legal, and ethically justifiable. Because it's a priviledge and not a right.

Therefore it doesn't matter WHY they were booted. You are arguing that even IF they were booted for being Muslims, that would be alright - because flight is a priviledge, not a right.

Unless I'm getting your argument wrong, the specifics of the case don't matter a single bit. They can be booted for being homosexual, Muslim, women, liberal, conservative, Christian, Jewish, tall, thin, short, fat, skinny, pale, dark, blind, crippled, casual, formal.


Just maybe it was because of there behavior. How about that? Muslims fly every single day on American carriers without incident. So why is this one different? I would say it was because of the groups behavior.

You know, as a Jew, knowing many other Jews, I can assure you that we have never been prevented from flying on an airplane. Never a single incident.

Therefore, if tomorrow I get booted from an airplane because I'm Jewish, it obviously must be because of my "behavior" and cannot possibly be due to discrimination?

Try a different argument, one that is not so stupid.

I see a number of people rushing to the conclusion in this thread that it was just ignorant racist people that wanted to boot them. I thought at the time and still am sure that these fellows could have conducted themselves better. They should have taken into consideration others around them. Was it necessary to pray loudly in the waiting area before a flight? We don't even pray loudly in the mosque. I have also flown out of a number of Islamic airports and don't ever remember someone praying loudly before a flight. So some of the responsibility is on these men's behavior. Also it hasn't been proven but if these men also were heard denouncing the US while either waiting or on board were stupid to do so. A regular white American would look suspicious denouncing the US while boarding a flight. If these guys were in fact doing that then they were asking to be taken off the flight. This is all just common sense.

There are laws that protect workers to an extent. However in most states you can fire people for anything. I employ people myself. I have fired people for a variety of things. Normally I tell them why but I don't have to.
What your talking about is they were booted only because they were Muslim. Just maybe it was because of there behavior. How about that? Muslims fly every single day on American carriers without incident. So why is this one different? I would say it was because of the groups behavior.

And just maybe it was because of the irrational fears of a few paranoid and perhaps racist passengers who interpreted behaviour which would otherwise be seen as perfectly ordinary in an Anglo-Saxon Christian passenger, as being dangerous or subversive when viewed in light of the imams' ethnicity.

But those laws are not constitutional Rights. Therefore... you disagree with them?

I mean laws are a priviledge, not a right.



It doesn't matter. Your argument is that because flying is a privileged, and not a right, they can be booted for any and all reasons and it is always acceptable, legal, and ethically justifiable. Because it's a privilege and not a right.

Therefore it doesn't matter WHY they were booted. You are arguing that even IF they were booted for being Muslims, that would be alright - because flight is a priviledge, not a right.

Unless I'm getting your argument wrong, the specifics of the case don't matter a single bit. They can be booted for being homosexual, Muslim, women, liberal, conservative, Christian, Jewish, tall, thin, short, fat, skinny, pale, dark, blind, crippled, casual, formal.



You know, as a Jew, knowing many other Jews, I can assure you that we have never been prevented from flying on an airplane. Never a single incident.

Therefore, if tomorrow I get booted from an airplane because I'm Jewish, it obviously must be because of my "behavior" and cannot possibly be due to discrimination?

Try a different argument, one that is not so stupid.


I think your missing my point a bit here and not going to repeat myself. If they were in fact being discriminated against and it can be proven they should win the case. However what I have seen of this so far is that they probably brought this on themselves.

Your scenario about being booted because you are Jewish is stupid. This is not what this case is about. It is about behavior that led to other passengers getting nervous and wondering what your intentions were.

I think your missing my point a bit here and not going to repeat myself. If they were in fact being discriminated against and it can be proven they should win the case.

Why should they? The argument you are supporting, and which Curious Inquiry first presented in this thread, is that "Flying is a priviledge, not a right." Therefore, it follows logically that as a priviledge, "discrimination" should be a valid and morally justifiable way to deny this "priviledge" to anyone.

Now, unless you're prepared to back down from this argument, you should be prepared for any and all ramifications of believing it to be true. Some of those ramifications are as I have demonstrated. I'm guessing you don't like those ramifications, so maybe you should re-examine your argument.

Your scenario about being booted because you are Jewish is stupid. This is not what this case is about.

It is *exactly* what this case is about. Come to grips with a thing I like to call, "reality."

Racists piss me off. And I'm entirely unconvinced the Imams won't try to sue the passengers. I've met very, very few Imams who weren't every bit as fucked up as neo-Nazis. Not that I think they shouldn't. It'd be good to get the sad shit out in the open, no matter the reason.

Whatever. All I have to say to you bigots is that your ethnicity is bollocks. Your history's a disgrace. Your parents failed. Your education's a joke. And you ain't no fucking human beings.

And just maybe it was because of the irrational fears of a few paranoid and perhaps racist passengers who interpreted behaviour which would otherwise be seen as perfectly ordinary in an Anglo-Saxon Christian passenger, as being dangerous or subversive when viewed in light of the imams' ethnicity.

That will be argued in court and will be interesting to see the outcome. However from what I have seen of this case so far and I know more about it then just the article in the post. It seems these guys will probably not win. My whole point to countering the "it has to be racism" bit is that the particulars of this case make it sound as if the imams were not behaving in a way that was normal.

Racists piss me off. And I'm entirely unconvinced the Imams won't try to sue the passengers. I've met very, very few Imams who weren't every bit as fucked up as neo-Nazis. Not that I think they shouldn't. It'd be good to get the sad shit out in the open, no matter the reason.

Whatever. All I have to say to you bigots is that your ethnicity is bollocks. Your history's a disgrace. Your parents failed. Your education's a joke. And you ain't no fucking human beings.

I'm a little confused. Who are the bigots in this case, according to you?

sorry if i sound snippy - I'm just curious
;)

Why should they? The argument you are supporting, and which Curious Inquiry first presented in this thread, is that "Flying is a priviledge, not a right." Therefore, it follows logically that as a priviledge, "discrimination" should be a valid and morally justifiable way to deny this "priviledge" to anyone.

Now, unless you're prepared to back down from this argument, you should be prepared for any and all ramifications of believing it to be true. Some of those ramifications are as I have demonstrated. I'm guessing you don't like those ramifications, so maybe you should re-examine your argument.

It is *exactly* what this case is about. Come to grips with a thing I like to call, "reality."

You seem to want to discredit what I say because it doesn't fit your everyone must have been a racist viewpoint. My point once again is that these guys if they did what they all said they were doing. They were not acting in a normal fashion. Therefore there actions got them booted off the plane. Same as for someone that is drunk and or someone that is arguing with others on board. If the flight crew thinks for a second you are a risk to the flight you can and will be removed. That is the reality that you need to come to grips with.
They can and will take it to court which is there remedy to what the perceived was wrong. If they can prove in court that it was racism then they should win. However I don't think they can so I don't believe they will win.

You seem to want to discredit what I say because it doesn't fit your everyone must have been a racist viewpoint. My point once again is that these guys if they did what they all said they were doing. They were not acting in a normal fashion. Therefore there actions got them booted off the plane. Same as for someone that is drunk and or someone that is arguing with others on board. If the flight crew thinks for a second you are a risk to the flight you can and will be removed. That is the reality that you need to come to grips with.
They can and will take it to court which is there remedy to what the perceived was wrong. If they can prove in court that it was racism then they should win. However I don't think they can so I don't believe they will win.

How were they not acting in a normal fashion? You yourself admitted that their behaviour would not be considered abnormal when teenagers or Anglo-Saxon Christians behave in this way. Why should it be considered abnormal for these men?

I'm a little confused. Who are the bigots in this case, according to you?

sorry if i sound snippy - I'm just curious
;) I'm sure the bigots know who they are, just like I'm sure an explicit reply would get me deat.

I say sue them.

Some ignorants dont even know muslims are suposed to pray 5 times/day, AT LEAST.lol. aren't they also exempt from praying when traveling.:p

You Americans and your concept of suing, it's just rediculous.

You seem to want to discredit what I say

No, I'm simply tearing into the "logic" of your arguments, using that same "logic" to its inevitable conclusions, and you seem not to like that. Sorry, but the fact that you don't like it is not a valid refutation.

Nor is the fact that you don't seem to address or even read what I say. I'm not going to bother with someone who can't be arsed to even pretend to have a conversation.

Let me recap:

You say, it's OK for these imams to have been booted off, because "flying is a priviledge, not a right." I have argued against that reason, successfully I might add.

You say, the legal case here is not about discrimination. Well, that's just plain untrue:

Omar Mohammedi, the New York City attorney for the imams, said the intent is not to go after passengers who raise valid concerns about security. But he suggested some passengers may have acted in bad faith out of prejudice.

This is CLEARLY about discrimination. But, you have ignored this as well.

In short, you seem to think that ignoring what others write and argue is a valid debating tactic. It's not, it's just rude and it's not going to work.

because it doesn't fit your everyone must have been a racist viewpoint.

I don't have such a viewpoint. Untrue.

My point once again is that these guys if they did what they all said they were doing. They were not acting in a normal fashion. Therefore there actions got them booted off the plane.

That wasn't your point when you first entered this thread. Shifting the goal posts perhaps? Your point - once again - was that it is OK to boot someone off the plane NO MATTER WHAT they do, because "flying is a priviledge, not a right."

Therefore, I don't see why you are arguing about their behavior at all. According to your argument it shouldn't matter. They CAN be booted for ANYTHING. That is what "flying is a priviledge, not a right" means, is it not?

And if it isn't, then why bring it up?

Where was the outrage when the UK government stopped innocent soccer fans from flying to Europe for acting like normal soccer fans? Where?

Anyway, they'll lose their case. They might win a trial, but it will be overturned. No government is going to stop airlines from tossing people off for good or bad reasons, simply because they do exactly that type of thing themselves all the time. (Like no fly lists, which I am sure you will find are full of individuals of all ethnicities, races and religions).

Also, WTF is it with this 'anglo-saxon' crap?

Where was the outrage when the UK government stopped innocent soccer fans from flying to Europe for acting like normal soccer fans? Where?

Define normal soccer fans. If they behave like the hooligans you see on the tv, then perhaps it's not entirely unjustified. The difference is that these men behaved like normal people. They prayed, they talked to their friends and they requested extenders for their seatbelts which evidently were too small. And they were punished for it.

Anyway, they'll lose their case. They might win a trial, but it will be overturned. No government is going to stop airlines from tossing people off for good or bad reasons, simply because they do exactly that type of thing themselves all the time. (Like no fly lists, which I am sure you will find are full of individuals of all ethnicities, races and religions).

Great. What's the difference between throwing off these imams, and throwing someone off because they are black? Asian? Jew? Italian?

Also, WTF is it with this 'anglo-saxon' crap?

Meaning that plenty of Anglo Saxon businessmen and passengers behave in this manner. They talk to their friends and relatives, they pray before and during boarding, and the more voluptuous of them request seatbelt extenders. The only difference is that they are Anglo-Saxon Christians and these were Muslims.

Simple question that will determine whether or not the behavior of the passengers was bigoted: Would this happen if they were Latvian Orthodox? Would this happen if they were WASP? If the answer is no, then, yes, it WAS bigotry.

It's that simple.

Simple question that will determine whether or not the behavior of the passengers was bigoted: Would this happen if they were Latvian Orthodox? Would this happen if they were WASP? If the answer is no, then, yes, it WAS bigotry.

It's that simple.

QFT

The way I see it flying is a privledge, if its true that the imams were doing everything that the passengers said they were doing then the airline was within it's rights to boot them from the plane. I personally would become suspicious of anyone speaking in another language (regardless of who is speaking it) here in the US because most everyone speaks english, and its likely I wouldn't know what they were talking about. Also, why speak in another language, I assume only because you don't want others to know of what you speak.

My point is that what these men were doing (assuming they did everything mentioned) that it is unusual- praying audibly, speaking in other languages and moving about the plane are all unusual- most passengers if they pray often do so quietly or silently, speak in english and stay in their seats once they've gotten into them, unless they need to go to the bathroom. Any one of these alone may not have caused so much suspiscion, but put them all together and I think most people would be worried a little.

As pointed out before, Muslims fly all the time and don't get booted off planes, this is because they don't act suspisciously. This doesn't prove anything but its clear the Imams' religion and ethnicity werent the only factors here. In the end the only ones who can really know if it was racism, are the passengers who reported it(and even they may not realize it).

The way I see it flying is a privledge, if its true that the imams were doing everything that the passengers said they were doing then the airline was within it's rights to boot them from the plane. I personally would become suspicious of anyone speaking in another language (regardless of who is speaking it) here in the US because most everyone speaks english, and its likely I wouldn't know what they were talking about. Also, why speak in another language, I assume only because you don't want others to know of what you speak.

My point is that what these men were doing (assuming they did everything mentioned) that it is unusual- praying audibly, speaking in other languages and moving about the plane are all unusual- most passengers if they pray often do so quietly or silently, speak in english and stay in their seats once they've gotten into them, unless they need to go to the bathroom. Any one of these alone may not have caused so much suspiscion, but put them all together and I think most people would be worried a little.

As pointed out before, Muslims fly all the time and don't get booted off planes, this is because they don't act suspisciously. This doesn't prove anything but its clear the Imams' religion and ethnicity werent the only factors here. In the end the only ones who can really know if it was racism, are the passengers who reported it(and even they may not realize it).

I rephrase my previous post: There are two questions: 1- Would it happen to a Greek Protestant? and 2- would a reasonable person do what the passengers did?

Also, if you ever come to Brazil speaking English and not Portuguese, is it OK for me to get you booted off a plane for not speaking the language of my homeland? No? Then stop thinking your language takes precedence!

I rephrase my previous post: There are two questions: 1- Would it happen to a Greek Protestant? and 2- would a reasonable person do what the passengers did?

Hmm, not sure how many greek protestants there are, but if they were doing everything the Imams were, its possible. I'm sure alot of it had to do with who the passengers that did the reporting were, I personally don't think I'd report anyone no matter how strange they are acting.

Also, if you ever come to Brazil speaking English and not Portuguese, is it OK for me to get you booted off a plane for not speaking the language of my homeland? No? Then stop thinking your language takes precedence!

Maybe it would be. If I started moving around the plane and had been praying beforehand then I would think it was even more likely.

I personally don't think I'd report anyone no matter how strange they are.

Kudos on that.

Maybe it would be. If I started moving around the plane and had been praying beforehand then I would think it was even more likely.

What annoyed me was your idea of "speaking a foreign language"...

That is a fact that Muslims have to remember. If this were Japanese in WWII I would understand it to.
And Blacks just HAVE to understand that being discrimnated against is normal, right?

The point is valid, if this was ANY OTHER person who did not look Muslim (heh), they wouldn't have been pulled off the plane for their behavore.

I personally would become suspicious of anyone speaking in another language (regardless of who is speaking it) here in the US because most everyone speaks english, and its likely I wouldn't know what they were talking about. Also, why speak in another language, I assume only because you don't want others to know of what you speak.

So if you go to say, Japan, you wouldn't mind being booted from a plane for speaking English with your friends?

Just because someone is in the US doesn't necessarily mean that English is their first language.

That's the only issue I have with your assertion really.

Maybe it would be. If I started moving around the plane and had been praying beforehand then I would think it was even more likely.
Oh dear, I should have requested most of the plane to de-embark the last time I flew. Why, most of my fellow passangers were NOT speaking English! At SFO too!

Damn Japanese, come to the US and not speak English when they are with friends and family, I tell ya...

Honto no tame ni iwareta! :DLOOK OUT! IT'S GOT A seatbelt extension...

Oh dear, I should have requested most of the plane to de-embark the last time I flew. Why, most of my fellow passangers were NOT speaking English! At SFO too!

Damn Japanese, come to the US and not speak English when they are with friends and family, I tell ya...

Honto no tame ni iwareta! :D

Oh dear, I should have requested most of the plane to de-embark the last time I flew. Why, most of my fellow passangers were NOT speaking English! At SFO too!

Damn Japanese, come to the US and not speak English when they are with friends and family, I tell ya...

well, apparently speaking in japanese at SFO (don't know what it stands for Im afraid) sounds fairly normal considering the number of people who were doing it. Besides I never said speaking a different language was on its own grounds for removal, but it in most cases could be considered unusual behaviour that would be among other factors to consider for someone being removed.

The way I see it flying is a privledge, if its true that the imams were doing everything that the passengers said they were doing then the airline was within it's rights to boot them from the plane. I personally would become suspicious of anyone speaking in another language (regardless of who is speaking it) here in the US because most everyone speaks english, and its likely I wouldn't know what they were talking about. Also, why speak in another language, I assume only because you don't want others to know of what you speak.

My point is that what these men were doing (assuming they did everything mentioned) that it is unusual- praying audibly, speaking in other languages and moving about the plane are all unusual- most passengers if they pray often do so quietly or silently, speak in english and stay in their seats once they've gotten into them, unless they need to go to the bathroom. Any one of these alone may not have caused so much suspiscion, but put them all together and I think most people would be worried a little.

As pointed out before, Muslims fly all the time and don't get booted off planes, this is because they don't act suspisciously. This doesn't prove anything but its clear the Imams' religion and ethnicity werent the only factors here. In the end the only ones who can really know if it was racism, are the passengers who reported it(and even they may not realize it).Someone is suspicious just because you don't know any foreign languages? Then go back to school and learn some. And what others speak on planes is not your business at all.
And if you are American why would you fly on planes, anyways? You should be at home or in your local church and pray. In English. Silently. On your knees. Facing east.

well, apparently speaking in japanese at SFO (don't know what it stands for Im afraid) sounds fairly normal considering the number of people who were doing it. Besides I never said speaking a different language was on its own grounds for removal, but it in most cases could be considered unusual behaviour that would be among other factors to consider for someone being removed.

...in an AIRPORT? With PEOPLE that travel to and from ALL OVER THE WORLD?

So if you go to say, Japan, you wouldn't mind being booted from a plane for speaking English with your friends?

Just because someone is in the US doesn't necessarily mean that English is their first language.

That's the only issue I have with your assertion really.

well, thats their right to do so if they believe I pose a danger. I obviously wouldnt be happy, but I don't see me sueing anyone either. Actually I wouldn't be surprised at all if it happened being that Im about 6'2" and have a nice beard going- I'd be afraid of me too. :P

I fail to see what the Imams could sue the passengers (collectively) over. While their actions were questionable at best, it doesn't seem to me that they committed any wrong as far as the law is concerned.

If the Imams feel they were wronged, sue the airline. They're the ones that booted them off the plane. They're the ones that (might have) violated their civil rights. Some passengers simply reported their concerns to airline personel. Weather it was racially motivated does not matter. Racism is not a crime.

Unfoutunately, the climate of the times does not help this in the least. It's a terrible fact of life, but all men of Arab descent are given a second look by passengers, especially those that do not fly often. Weather they are immigrant Muslims or 6th generation christians, they are still looked upon by the common passenger as a potential danger. With the climate of the times, it is simply unavoidible.

well, thats their right to do so if they believe I pose a danger. I obviously wouldnt be happy, but I don't see me sueing anyone either. Actually I wouldn't be surprised at all if it happened being that Im about 6'2" and have a nice beard going- I'd be afraid of me too. :P

"Ooo, the big man scares me, religion or not..."

I hope you enjoy boat rides. :p

I fail to see what the Imams could sue the passengers (collectively) over. While their actions were questionable at best, it doesn't seem to me that they committed any wrong as far as the law is concerned.

If the Imams feel they were wronged, sue the airline. They're the ones that booted them off the plane. They're the ones that (might have) violated their civil rights. Some passengers simply reported their concerns to airline personel. Weather it was racially motivated does not matter. Racism is not a crime.

Unfoutunately, the climate of the times does not help this in the least. It's a terrible fact of life, but all men of Arab descent are given a second look by passengers, especially those that do not fly often. Weather they are immigrant Muslims or 6th generation christians, they are still looked upon by the common passenger as a potential danger. With the climate of the times, it is simply unavoidible.

They ARE suing the airline.

Someone is suspicious just because you don't know any foreign languages? Then go back to school and learn some. And what others speak on planes is not your business at all.
And if you are American why would you fly on planes, anyways? You should be at home or in your local church and pray. In English. Silently. On your knees. Facing east.

Even someone who knows 20 languages would have a decent chance of finding someone whose language they don't know. Are you suggesting I learn every language on earth? At any rate I do know another language besides english. Ugh... dunno why I even bothered responding to such an inflammatory post.

Even someone who knows 20 languages would have a decent chance of finding someone whose language they don't know. Are you suggesting I learn every language on earth? At any rate I do know another language besides english. Ugh... dunno why I even bothered responding to such an inflammatory post.

About 6,000 languages in the world, and counting - and dialects developing INTO separate languages as we speak. Linguistics is fascinating.

Even someone who knows 20 languages would have a decent chance of finding someone whose language they don't know. Are you suggesting I learn every language on earth?Then stop bitching about folks who speak other languages.

They ARE suing the airline.

Well good.

Something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. It was really only a matter of time.

...in an AIRPORT? With PEOPLE that travel to and from ALL OVER THE WORLD?

Well, I doubt its that common for international flights to be going to Minneapolis... At any rate I agree with you that its ridiculous to throw people off of planes just for speaking in another language, but if thats what the airline wants to do they can. I'm sure they won't be making much money from such people, but thats their business.

Well, I doubt its that common for international flights to be going to Minneapolis... At any rate I agree with you that its ridiculous to throw people off of planes just for speaking in another language, but if thats what the airline wants to do they can. I'm sure they won't be making much money from such people, but thats their business.

Actually, Minneapolis is a huge Northwest hub. I don't have my routesheet atm, but I know Minneapolis handles many international flights.

Actually, Minneapolis is a huge Northwest hub. I don't have my routesheet atm, but I know Minneapolis handles many international flights.

I suppose so, was just checking around to see- though I couldnt find any numbers on the volume of international flights vs. domestic. I was just assuming so due to its relatively central in terms of E-W and proximity to canada that it doesnt handle that many international flights as opposed to domestic.

I suppose so, was just checking around to see- though I couldnt find any numbers on the volume of international flights vs. domestic. I was just assuming so due to its relatively central in terms of E-W and proximity to canada that it doesnt handle that many international flights as opposed to domestic.What would that change? Are you only complaining about foreigners on domestic flights?

Actually, Minneapolis is a huge Northwest hub. I don't have my routesheet atm, but I know Minneapolis handles many international flights.

No, it doesn't. Nearly all flights are to Canada or other U.S. states.

What would that change? Are you only complaining about foreigners on domestic flights?

It is rather rare to get someone from another nation (asides Canada and possibly mexico) on a standard domestic flight. Most long haul international flights fly into most any city a foreigner would want to visit. I'm not saying that foreigners don't fly domestically, I'm saying that it's rather rare to find one on any single flight.

What would that change? Are you only complaining about foreigners on domestic flights?

No, I'm not complaining about anything. :fluffle:

Anyway I've got to be doing my homework, its four AM here and I need to finish up.

No, it doesn't. Nearly all flights are to Canada or other U.S. states.

Minneapolis-St. Paul is a large hub for both international and domestic flights for NWA. Take a look at the timetables (http://www.nwa.com/travel/timetable/effective_021507.pdf).

It is rather rare to get someone from another nation (asides Canada and possibly mexico) on a standard domestic flight. Most long haul international flights fly into most any city a foreigner would want to visit. I'm not saying that foreigners don't fly domestically, I'm saying that it's rather rare to find one on any single flight.And if they do, they are not supposed to speak anything but English. And they are not supposed to move in 'suspicious' ways, or to pray? In their own respective language? And even if they are not foreigners?

And if they do, they are not supposed to speak anything but English. And they are not supposed to move in 'suspicious' ways, or to pray? In their own respective language? And even if they are not foreigners?

In the present cultural climate, it would be inadvisable for anyone to move about in suspicious ways. Especially those with darker complections. While very unforutunate (and rather stupid, IMO), it's the climate of the times.

In the present cultural climate, it would be inadvisable for anyone to move about in suspicious ways. Especially those with darker complections. While very unforutunate (and rather stupid, IMO), it's the climate of the times.So everyone should just give in to the racists? Or to the good Christians? For some folks everything unfamiliar is suspicious, you know.

So everyone should just give in to the racists? Or to the good Christians? For some folks everything unfamiliar is suspicious, you know.

No. I am saying that, for their sake, people of Arab descent should be conscious of the times.

No. I am saying that, for their sake, people of Arab descent should be conscious of the times.Of course. And God bless America.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free? Does it?

Great. What's the difference between throwing off these imams, and throwing someone off because they are black? Asian? Jew? Italian?


Nothing. Sometimes they even throw 'anglo-saxons' off planes even. (Well they would if they could find any I suppose).

They hate sick people too. Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17859629/).

Fact is airlines and governments are arbitrary and capricious about who they ban or kick off from planes. And they have been since long before 9/11. I don't see why anyone should join the non random selective outrage in this case.

But, then. I suppose it is more comforting to imagine that the entire Airline system of the world is run by a secret cabal of 'anglo-saxon' christians who get their jollies from evicting Imams from their seats.

How immensely peculiar. Many of you are from the US, yet you claim boarding a flight is a privilege - not a right.
Where I come from, it is indeed a right. If you've paid for the flight, then you've entered a binding contract, and by law you have the right to the product/service that's been offered.

I suppose there are conditions of this contract that you need to fulfill in order to be allowed on. Aside from that, every person has the right to fly. In my country at least.

Boarding an airplane is a priviledge, not a right. Behave, or don't fly. It applies to everyone. I'd be more surprised if people on planes were NOT paranoid.

boarding an airplane is not a right; not being discriminated against is...

How immensely peculiar. Many of you are from the US, yet you claim boarding a flight is a privilege - not a right.
Where I come from, it is indeed a right. If you've paid for the flight, then you've entered a binding contract, and by law you have the right to the product/service that's been offered.

I suppose there are conditions of this contract that you need to fulfill in order to be allowed on. Aside from that, every person has the right to fly. In my country at least.

Well you're obviously not from the UK or Spain.

How immensely peculiar. Many of you are from the US, yet you claim boarding a flight is a privilege - not a right.
Where I come from, it is indeed a right. If you've paid for the flight, then you've entered a binding contract, and by law you have the right to the product/service that's been offered.

I suppose there are conditions of this contract that you need to fulfill in order to be allowed on. Aside from that, every person has the right to fly. In my country at least.

In the US, there's a clause in the fine pring stating that the Airline reserves the right to refuse you service. Oftentimes it's used when a passenger enjoys himself too much at the airport bar.

Well you're obviously not from the UK or Spain.

Franco's dead and Maggie.. er, never qualified as a living human being anyway. :p

Franco's dead and Maggie.. er, never qualified as a living human being anyway. :p

Maggie was a liberal compared to Blair though. She just didn't like miners.

In the US, there's a clause in the fine pring stating that the Airline reserves the right to refuse you service. Oftentimes it's used when a passenger enjoys himself too much at the airport bar.

That's what I said. But claiming flying is a privilege - and perhaps it is one in a way, for those who are well off* - makes it sound as if everyone isn't allowed to fly. Anyone has the right to use the services and products offered by companies, in a free country. Sure enough, companies have an equal right to deny you their services too, but nowhere is the state involved in this equation (and only the state can grant you and uphold your human rights).

Things were so much better when the state was herding us around, and our souls were not in the hands of conglomerates. Chomsky, where art thou? :(

* = If you have a bed to sleep in and get 3 meals per day, then you're doing pretty good.

He denied the imams were talking about Saddam, and said that their seats were assigned and that they requested extenders because their seat belts didn’t fit.

Those are some fat-assed imams. :p

Those are some fat-assed imams. :pthey only adjust to their environment :p

http://texsquid.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fat_people.jpg
"Radiologists are finding that the traditional apparatuses for peering inside the body, including X-ray machines, are not working on some of the more sizable citizens of the US, where 64% of the population is either overweight or obese. According to a study led by Massachusetts General Hospital radiologist Raul Uppot, medical reports acknowledging limitations due to patients' "body habitus" have effectively doubled over the last 15 years. Larger patients may be unable to fit into scanners, and their fat may be too dense for X-rays or especially sound waves to penetrate. While many are trying to solve America's obesity problem, medical manufacturers are capitalizing on the new demand by building larger MRI machines. "

*goes blind*...

Come on guys, they're only security conscious...

Just as I was born in Britain. :p

(if you know me well enough, you'll get this one ;))

they only adjust to their environment :p

http://texsquid.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fat_people.jpg
"Radiologists are finding that the traditional apparatuses for peering inside the body, including X-ray machines, are not working on some of the more sizable citizens of the US, where 64% of the population is either overweight or obese. According to a study led by Massachusetts General Hospital radiologist Raul Uppot, medical reports acknowledging limitations due to patients' "body habitus" have effectively doubled over the last 15 years. Larger patients may be unable to fit into scanners, and their fat may be too dense for X-rays or especially sound waves to penetrate. While many are trying to solve America's obesity problem, medical manufacturers are capitalizing on the new demand by building larger MRI machines. "

*goes blind*...

I'm anorexic-skinny compared to most other Americans. :(

I'm anorexic-skinny compared to most other Americans. :(but you still weigh 250 pounds ? :p

In the US, there's a clause in the fine pring stating that the Airline reserves the right to refuse you service. Oftentimes it's used when a passenger enjoys himself too much at the airport bar.

This fineprint goes against the basic right of not being discriminated against on the basis of race or religion.

Human Rights take precedence over corporate fineprint in a liberal democracy.

I wonder if those arguing so vehemently for the rights of the airline would be doing so if it were a group of black men, or Jews, or indigenous people that this happened to. I wonder if they would be willing to call it what it is then, bigotry dressed up as security.

People, it says at the bottom of the article, "May not be redistributed." Tut tut. Wag the finger.

People are too worried about offending muslims. Yes, you may offend them, but it's not often about their religion. And, if I may say so, some muslims (bearing in mind, I say some) take advantage of this. If a jewish or christian person were taken into custody for suspicious behaviour, they wouldn't very often say "You're discriminating against my religion! I'll sue!"

they only adjust to their environment :p

http://texsquid.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fat_people.jpg
"Radiologists are finding that the traditional apparatuses for peering inside the body, including X-ray machines, are not working on some of the more sizable citizens of the US, where 64% of the population is either overweight or obese. According to a study led by Massachusetts General Hospital radiologist Raul Uppot, medical reports acknowledging limitations due to patients' "body habitus" have effectively doubled over the last 15 years. Larger patients may be unable to fit into scanners, and their fat may be too dense for X-rays or especially sound waves to penetrate. While many are trying to solve America's obesity problem, medical manufacturers are capitalizing on the new demand by building larger MRI machines. "

*goes blind*...

Eep, they really make tights that big? That image has been burned into my retinas, thanks.

This is misbehaving?

As I understand it, they were imitating the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, possibly deliberately. So, I would say, "Yes."

if speaking about Saddam and Cursing the US are enough to Ground you.. and call you a-normal.

then a lot of us (NSG playa).. are a-normal.

It is one thing to speak of Saddam and cursing the US on line. It is another to do so in an airport. If I had been rather tipsy the night before, I would still refrain from refering to myself as "bombed" if I were at an airport.

As I understand it, they were imitating the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, possibly deliberately. So, I would say, "Yes."

Why is this a possibility? And in what ways were they imitating the 9/11 hijackers? By being Muslim and using air transport?

Yes, it's a priveledge, not a right. Like many things.

For example, working at a job is a priveledge, not a right. Therefore I should be free to fire any employees that I think may be homosexuals. Or if they're women. Or part of an ethnic group I don't like. You know, there's this one guy, and I think he's Jewish. Therefore I can fire him, because hey, working at my place is a priveledge, not a right. Correct? You would agree with this line of argumentation?

Try reason instead of logic, sometime, fool.

It is one thing to speak of Saddam and cursing the US on line. It is another to do so in an airport. If I had been rather tipsy the night before, I would still refrain from refering to myself as "bombed" if I were at an airport.so bitching about seat belts makes someone a terrorist?

Why is this a possibility? And in what ways were they imitating the 9/11 hijackers? By being Muslim and using air transport?Hey, that's America!

but you still weigh 250 pounds ? :p

Most adult Americans weigh above 170.

I am 15, and only weigh 98 pounds.

I'm losing weight when I don't need to! :(

so bitching about seat belts makes someone a terrorist?

Praying on an airplane? okay.
Complaining about seatbelts? Okay, fine, fatty.
Going from seat to seat? Disruptive, but meh.
Being Muslim? OMG CODE RED CODE RED WE'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER 9/11 HERE!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: :sniper::mp5::gundge::mp5:

:rolleyes: It does in America.

It is one thing to speak of Saddam and cursing the US on line. It is another to do so in an airport. If I had been rather tipsy the night before, I would still refrain from refering to myself as "bombed" if I were at an airport.

That's a whole different issue. This issue is about the fact that a group of men were grounded for engaging in a set of behaviours that were perfectly normal for any group of people, simply because of their appearance and religious beliefs.

And there is no proof as yet that they actually were speaking of Saddam or cursing the US. Furthermore, if I was to curse Australia (I am Australian), I doubt I would be grounded. I seriously doubt the same courtesy would be extended to a young male who fit the stereotype that we hold of Muslim appearance. The only reason for this is their appearance and their religious beliefs. Which makes it discrimination.

Praying on an airplane? okay.
Complaining about seatbelts? Okay, fine, fatty.
Going from seat to seat? Disruptive, but meh.
Being Muslim? OMG CODE RED CODE RED WE'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER 9/11 HERE!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: :sniper::mp5::gundge::mp5:

:rolleyes: It does in America.


I think for once, gun smilies are applicable ;)

I think for once, gun smilies are applicable ;)

They only are when you are satirizing idiots. :)

Why is this a possibility? And in what ways were they imitating the 9/11 hijackers? By being Muslim and using air transport?

It's your article. I quoted the relevant passage already. If it doesn't convince you to at least consider that it was their own fault, then don't. /shrug

They only are when you are satirizing idiots. :)


Ah that's why I've never used them. Satire is not my forte.

It's your article. I quoted the relevant passage already. If it doesn't convince you to at least consider that it was their own fault, then don't. /shrug

And I already quoted a passage that leaves the claims of a few passengers open to question. Why automatically assume the passengers are telling the truth and the imams are lying?

What i find most strange is that it's considered suspect for an Imam to be seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. It's as if I would suspect a chatolic Bishop because i see him pray.
These men are clerics, I find normal that they would take their religious duties a little further than normal peoples.

What i find most strange is that it's considered suspect for an Imam to be seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. It's as if I would suspect a chatolic Bishop because i see him pray.
These men are clerics, I find normal that they would take their religious duties a little further than normal peoples.

Which is why I said that the security were just as security-conscious as I was born in Britain. Which I actually wasn't- I was born in Ohio. :p

What i find most strange is that it's considered suspect for an Imam to be seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. It's as if I would suspect a chatolic Bishop because i see him pray.
These men are clerics, I find normal that they would take their religious duties a little further than normal peoples.

Because it's an accepted "fact" amongst American airline security that any devout Muslim praying at an airport or on a plane are about to commit hijack and/or suicide attack.

Enough with this "it's a right not a privlidge" bullshit. When you are a business, and you extend your business to the public, you may not discriminate. If they were tossed because they were muslims, it is discriminatory.

The simple fact that they were talking and praying in Arabic surprises me not, considering they are, in fact, Arab clergy.

Try reason instead of logic, sometime, fool.

Gee, that's a great and reasonable argument. You have no counter-argument, nothing to say - other than to declare I'm a "fool." You have nothing to support your (stupid) statements, just the assertion that somehow, in some way you can't explain, I am unreasonable and you are the king of reason.

You basically just said, "I can't argue. My brain hurts. Wah, you're a big poopie head, I WIN!"

To which I just laugh, because people like you are laughable.

Read the article again. The lawyer for the imams has said that they were not doing half the things the passengers accused them of.

Since when are lawyers known for honesty and justice?

Yes, the fact that they were Muslims was a big factor in the accusations. Yes, most Americans have a prejudice or at least a suspicious attitude to most Muslims. Yes, this is because of 9/11 as well as reports and terrorist attacks from around the world.

Hey, we all have our problems. We all have stereotypes placed upon us, and America isn't perfect. Muslims should be aware that they will be looked at and regarded suspiciously in America and Europe for some time. It's not their fault, instead it's the fault of other extremist Muslims, but there can be nothing done about it. Not long ago, black people in the United States were similarly treated. They got the picture quickly though, and refrained (mostly) from "acting suspicious" or "setting eyes on white girls" which in turn would get them shouted at, taken off of buses, or even killed. Of course it wasn't legal, but it was done nevertheless. 9/11 is still fresh in our minds, as are terrorist attacks across Europe, Asia, Africa - almost all of them done by Muslim extremist groups. People have a right to be suspicious of someone - the reason for it may not be legal or moral, but it's there.

So when the passengers saw Muslims doing things that usually Muslims on planes don't do, they were suspicious based off of a prejudice (most likely). But it's better safe then sorry, and all passengers should know that.

And lastly, there's American media involved in this. In the movie United 93, the Muslims on the plane in the movie were doing similar things that the Muslims here were doing - praying in Arabic, conversing with each other, moving around. Not that the movie should be blamed for American prejudice - no, that blame should fall squarely on Muslim extremist terrorists. The only problem is that most Muslims are not extremist terrorists, and yet still get the suspicious eye based on their race and/or religion.

Just for the record, Christians praying on flights make me uncomfortable and a little nervous.

I highly doubt that.

The only problem is that most Muslims are not extremist terrorists, and yet still get the suspicious eye based on their race and/or religion.

and that's what we call "discrimination". And when you run a business, it's illegal.

and that's what we call "discrimination". And when you run a business, it's illegal.
And when you run a country?

And when you run a country?

unconstitutional

and that's what we call "discrimination". And when you run a business, it's illegal.

Agree!

It's like denying a repeat pedophiliac sex offender his right to buy candy. ("BUT HE MIGHT USE IT TO LURE CHILDREN!").

... not quite the same I guess, but then again, it's not the airlines that would refuse service, more than likely, in the US, it's the FAA.

Talking about Saddam ? Cursing the USA? Dressed as clerics? :D Dumbasses!
I bet if these guys were to report a burglar they'd say: "Oh, yes, he was wearing a striped shirt, wore a black mask and had a big sack with the word "SWAG" written on it...Oh and he had a crowbar"

I have never heard of a catholic, or a protestant, or a Buddhist hijacking a plan, but I have heard of Muslims doing the same. When I see someone at the airport praying in Arabic, I’m going to notice him. If I hear him talking about Saddam in a positive way, I’d be more suspicious. If I heard him “cursing America” I’d tell the authorities. Perhaps that is discriminatory; in fact, I know it is. That doesn’t me I wouldn’t do it, because it’s better to be branded an Islamophobe or a racist than it is to die in hijacking.

Some people have drawn comparisons to being suspicious of priests. Well, if I saw that priest outside an abortion clinic, I would be a little suspicious. If I saw a group of priests around the same clinic, I’d sure as hell tell someone about it.

This lawsuit is bad because it will probably make people more fearful about speaking up when they see suspicious behavior of any kind. If a little discrimination is all it takes to prevent the next 9-11, and a few Imams missing their flight saves someone’s life, than I think it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.

I have never heard of a catholic, or a protestant, or a Buddhist hijacking a plan, but I have heard of Muslims doing the same. When I see someone at the airport praying in Arabic, I’m going to notice him. If I hear him talking about Saddam in a positive way, I’d be more suspicious. If I heard him “cursing America” I’d tell the authorities. Perhaps that is discriminatory; in fact, I know it is. That doesn’t me I wouldn’t do it, because it’s better to be branded an Islamophobe or a racist than it is to die in hijacking.
The terrorists have already won if your willing to give up democratic principles for perceived safety.


This lawsuit is bad because it will probably make people more fearful about speaking up when they see suspicious behavior of any kind. If a little discrimination is all it takes to prevent the next 9-11, and a few Imams missing their flight saves someone’s life, than I think it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.

1.) The clerics are suing the airlines not the people that reported them.

2.) That's why we have Air Marshalls on our planes now.

Some people have drawn comparisons to being suspicious of priests. Well, if I saw that priest outside an abortion clinic, I would be a little suspicious. If I saw a group of priests around the same clinic, I’d sure as hell tell someone about it.

If I saw a bunch of priests outside an abortion clinic I'd think it's a protest. They're quite common you know.

But for the sake of arguing, let's continue this analogy. If you saw a bunch of priests at a clinic you'd view them as suspicious, why? Most likely because, it's out of the ordinary, what reason would the priests have to be there?

In that same vein, what reason do imams have at an airport? Well "to fly somewhere" seems to be a good purpose. Someone is suspicious when their actions are not what one would expect. They are priests, they were praying, and unlike the archtypical flying nun, priests can't fly by themselves.



This lawsuit is bad because it will probably make people more fearful about speaking up when they see suspicious behavior of any kind. If a little discrimination is all it takes to prevent the next 9-11, and a few Imams missing their flight saves someone’s life, than I think it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.

So discrimination is ok because some muslims, at some point, used a plane as a weapon?

If I saw a bunch of priests outside an abortion clinic I'd think it's a protest. They're quite common you know.

But for the sake of arguing, let's continue this analogy. If you saw a bunch of priests at a clinic you'd view them as suspicious, why? Most likely because, it's out of the ordinary, what reason would the priests have to be there?

In that same vein, what reason do imams have at an airport? Well "to fly somewhere" seems to be a good purpose. Someone is suspicious when their actions are not what one would expect. They are priests, they were praying, and unlike the archtypical flying nun, priests can't fly by themselves.
Let me re-phrase my analogy by substituting "Nun" for "priest", since nuns can have abortions.

I would suspect them since several catholics have bombed abortion clinics.

The last time I saw a group of Buddhist monks or catholic priests flying somewhere together was...never. I would actually take notice of any grouping of religious members boarding a plane, and it would be quite negative if members of their religion had a disconcerting tendency to kill people living in the U.S.




So discrimination is ok because some muslims, at some point, used a plane as a weapon?
And because it is quite probable that other muslims intend to do so, and that by simply delaying someone from getting on their flight lives may be saved.

unconstitutionalAnd when the constitution isn't enforced?

They probably shouldn't have been kicked off the flight. Maybe they should have been asked to show the contense of their baggage and what they might have in their pockets to the flight crew, and if they weren't fat enough to require them they shouldn't be issued seatbelt extenders, but if they comply I don't see why they should be kicked off the flight.

Also the people who became suspicious and alerted the flight crew shouldn't be sued or punished in any way. That only discourages people from speaking up when there is a real problem.

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe these guys might have wanted to arouse suspicion for some reason? Maybe they wanted to cash in on a lawsuit, maybe they wanted to bring attention to the fact that Muslims come under suspicion often, maybe they even wanted to check out how aware the passengers are and what steps the crew will take so they could use that information to help terrorists.

And because it is quite probable that other muslims intend to do so, and that by simply delaying someone from getting on their flight lives may be saved.

Your "probability" is based on... what, exactly?

Let's see. There were 19 hijackers on 9/11 who used a plane as a weapon. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. That amounts to 0.000000146% of Muslims who committed this crime.

So what drugs would I have to smoke to consider 0.000000146% to be "quite probable?" I want to know.

I have never heard of a catholic, or a protestant, or a Buddhist hijacking a plan, but I have heard of Muslims doing the same. When I see someone at the airport praying in Arabic, I’m going to notice him. If I hear him talking about Saddam in a positive way, I’d be more suspicious. If I heard him “cursing America” I’d tell the authorities. Perhaps that is discriminatory; in fact, I know it is. That doesn’t me I wouldn’t do it, because it’s better to be branded an Islamophobe or a racist than it is to die in hijacking.

Some people have drawn comparisons to being suspicious of priests. Well, if I saw that priest outside an abortion clinic, I would be a little suspicious. If I saw a group of priests around the same clinic, I’d sure as hell tell someone about it.

This lawsuit is bad because it will probably make people more fearful about speaking up when they see suspicious behavior of any kind. If a little discrimination is all it takes to prevent the next 9-11, and a few Imams missing their flight saves someone’s life, than I think it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.You support discrimination to please your comfort level? You are paranoid. And racist.
And btw: how good is your Arabic?

You support discrimination to please your comfort level? You are paranoid. And racist.
And btw: how good is your Arabic?
Not very.

And yes, I guess I support racism to please my comfort level, just as some apparently support political correctness instead of safety for theirs.


The only people at fault was the airplane company who kicked them off the flight instead of searching them; if that's a racist, paranoid viewpoint, than I am both paranoid and racist. No serious damage was done to anyone.

They probably shouldn't have been kicked off the flight. Maybe they should have been asked to show the contense of their baggage and what they might have in their pockets to the flight crew, and if they weren't fat enough to require them they shouldn't be issued seatbelt extenders, but if they comply I don't see why they should be kicked off the flight.

Also the people who became suspicious and alerted the flight crew shouldn't be sued or punished in any way. That only discourages people from speaking up when there is a real problem.

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe these guys might have wanted to arouse suspicion for some reason? Maybe they wanted to cash in on a lawsuit, maybe they wanted to bring attention to the fact that Muslims come under suspicion often, maybe they even wanted to check out how aware the passengers are and what steps the crew will take so they could use that information to help terrorists.The flight cerw should definitely be sued and punished for their arbitrary and racist conduct.

And maybe the rest of the world really should start treating Americans on planes as Americans treat Muslims on planes.

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe these guys might have wanted to arouse suspicion for some reason? Maybe they wanted to cash in on a lawsuit, maybe they wanted to bring attention to the fact that Muslims come under suspicion often, maybe they even wanted to check out how aware the passengers are and what steps the crew will take so they could use that information to help terrorists.

That's almost certainly what it is.

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe these guys might have wanted to arouse suspicion for some reason? Maybe they wanted to cash in on a lawsuit, maybe they wanted to bring attention to the fact that Muslims come under suspicion often, maybe they even wanted to check out how aware the passengers are and what steps the crew will take so they could use that information to help terrorists.

That's almost certainly what it is.

Blaming the victim much?

And maybe the rest of the world really should start treating Americans on planes as Americans treat Muslims on planes.


You mean like buying a ticket, then being the right to board the plane because you are on a list. But the list is secret, and no-one will tell you anything about it?

Yah, well I think that ship sailed some time ago.

Anway, I don't see why anyone should pander to any religion in anyway whatsoever. If they want to be muslims, fine, but they should do it in private.

Anway, I don't see why anyone should pander to any religion in anyway whatsoever. If they want to be muslims, fine, but they should do it in private.

So it's illegal to pray in public now? What harm are they doing to anyone?

Blaming the victim much?

Some folks pretend to slip and fall in stores to sue the company that owns the store. Certainly it's a small number of people, but some do it. It's possible that this is just a more creative version of that scam.

Anway, I don't see why anyone should pander to any religion in anyway whatsoever. If they want to be muslims, fine, but they should do it in private.

Very well, but make it so no priest can fly, either. I hope Ratzlinger doesn't get seasick when he has to go to places by boat.

Let me re-phrase my analogy by substituting "Nun" for "priest", since nuns can have abortions.

I would suspect them since several catholics have bombed abortion clinics.

The last time I saw a group of Buddhist monks or catholic priests flying somewhere together was...never. I would actually take notice of any grouping of religious members boarding a plane, and it would be quite negative if members of their religion had a disconcerting tendency to kill people living in the U.S.

I see, well then I'm sure you realize more christians have killed people in this country than muslims, right?

Blaming the victim much?

I suppose I am. Still this is what you get if you parade your religion around in public.

I support stricter standards for anyone who was praying visibly to an Abrahamic god before boarding a plane with me. Followers of death cults get me nervous.

You mean like buying a ticket, then being the right to board the plane because you are on a list. But the list is secret, and no-one will tell you anything about it?That's not how Americans treat flight passengers. Aren't all passenger lists now checked by any federal policing institution?

Yah, well I think that ship sailed some time ago.I suppose so. But why not ask folks who suspiciously look and talk like Americans to leave the plane? You know, just treat them as they treat others...

Anway, I don't see why anyone should pander to any religion in anyway whatsoever. If they want to be muslims, fine, but they should do it in private.And if they want to be christians, fine, the should do it in private. No priest's or nun's dress on planes. No crosses or crucifixes, no prayers.

Some folks pretend to slip and fall in stores to sue the company that owns the store. Certainly it's a small number of people, but some do it. It's possible that this is just a more creative version of that scam.

You'd think if they wanted to sue someone they would do something a little more suspicious, instead of just walking around and speaking Arabic.

Very well, but make it so no priest can fly, either. I hope Ratzlinger doesn't get seasick when he has to go to places by boat.

I am totally cool with that. Actually, it's sort of a dream of mine.

No crosses or crucifixes

Yay! No goths!

I support stricter standards for anyone who was praying visibly to an Abrahamic god before boarding a plane with me. Followers of death cults get me nervous.

Then take your bigotry to North Korea, our nation is a liberal one.

Not very.

And yes, I guess I support racism to please my comfort level, just as some apparently support political correctness instead of safety for theirs.


The only people at fault was the airplane company who kicked them off the flight instead of searching them; if that's a racist, paranoid viewpoint, than I am both paranoid and racist. No serious damage was done to anyone.There was damage done to the Muslims. They were denied travel. I pray that will happen to you one day.

You'd think if they wanted to sue someone they would do something a little more suspicious, instead of just walking around and speaking Arabic.

If they do something really suspicious they don't have much of a lawsuit, nor can they use this as a way to publicize the suspicious attitudes of non Muslims toward Muslim passengers. They probably acted just out of the ordinary enough to make their fellow passengers uncomfortable without doing anything outlandish.

I suppose so. But why not ask folks who suspiciously look and talk like Americans to leave the plane? You know, just treat them as they treat others...

In certain parts of the world in the past people who acted and talked like americans were restricted that way.

Airlines are shitty and capricious. I don't believe that the reason is some form of structural islamophobia however. I think they are just asshats who know the government is always going to let them behave as badly as they want.

Moreover, this righteous moral crusade against islamophobia is a little tired no? It's not even like muslims are the most discriminated against group.

And if they want to be christians, fine, the should do it in private. No priest's or nun's dress on planes. No crosses or crucifixes, no prayers.

If I though praying would work, I would pray for that every goddamn day.

Then take your bigotry to North Korea, our nation is a liberal one.

You see your bigotry there? I express the perfectly reasonable opinion that followers of death cults make me nervous, and you tell me to move to north korea.

Typical. Americans aren't liberals. They are facists in cheap off the rack suits.

You see your bigotry there? I express the perfectly reasonable opinion that followers of death cults make me nervous, and you tell me to move to north korea.

Typical. Americans aren't liberals. They are facists in cheap off the rack suits.

I sense some cognitive dissonance.

That or you're just trolling.

You see your bigotry there? I express the perfectly reasonable opinion that followers of death cults make me nervous, and you tell me to move to north korea.
You advocate authoritarianism, and I suggest you try living in an authoritarian country. Hardly bigotry.

You see your bigotry there? I express the perfectly reasonable opinion that followers of death cults make me nervous, and you tell me to move to north korea.

Typical. Americans aren't liberals. They are facists in cheap off the rack suits.

A religion is not a cult, and dismissing major world religions as "death cults" displays the height of bigotry.

And in America, we do have freedom of religion, so you who are in favor of eliminating that favor are the one who is showing a decidedly non-liberal stance. Unless of course you consider communism (or whatever pinko nonsense you'd favor) to be "liberal," but I don't.

I sense some cognitive dissonance.

That or you're just trolling.

Not really. I find that plenty of attitudes, actions and opinions that would be otherwise rightly rejected by the general populace suddenly become protected when they are clothed in religion.

I find the double standard distasteful, and I am just pointing it out.

Not really. I find that plenty of attitudes, actions and opinions that would be otherwise rightly rejected by the general populace suddenly become protected when they are clothed in religion.

I find the double standard distasteful, and I am just pointing it out.

and this should preclude them from flying on planes...why, exactly?

Great double standard you got going there yourself.

You advocate authoritarianism, and I suggest you try living in an authoritarian country. Hardly bigotry.

Everyone advocates authoritarianism to some extent. You obviously do to, since you feel the airline should be compelled to allow imams to fly.

My bias just runs in a different direction. I would allow smoking during the flight for example.

Everyone advocates authoritarianism to some extent. You obviously do to, since you feel the airline should be compelled to allow imams to fly.

My bias just runs in a different direction. I would allow smoking during the flight for example.

the difference being, a smoker is merely precluded from smoking, not flying. No one is banned for doing an act, they are merely barred from doing that act.

You would ban based soley on belief.

A religion is not a cult,...Religion is cult.

If they do something really suspicious they don't have much of a lawsuit, nor can they use this as a way to publicize the suspicious attitudes of non Muslims toward Muslim passengers. They probably acted just out of the ordinary enough to make their fellow passengers uncomfortable without doing anything outlandish.

I fail to see how they were acting suspicious, every complaint lodged by the passengers is laughable.

1.) they were speaking Arabic.
So what? At any given airport you will have people speaking different languages, deal with it.
2.) They were moving around the plane.
Hardly a cause to boot someone off the plane.
3.)They asked for seatbelt extensions.
If those count as weapons then so does the human body.
4.)They were expressing anti-U.S. sentiment.
As does 90% of the world, big deal.

If you take away the fact that these guys were Muslims, there is no plausible cause to bar them from flying, which makes this an open and shut case of discrimination.

and this should preclude them from flying on planes...why, exactly?


Because I don't like it. They don't have to respect my atheism. I don't see why I should respect their jibber-jabber either.

So I feel free to advocate a ban on their travel, in the same way a christian president felt free to state that atheists can't be americans.

Everyone advocates authoritarianism to some extent. You obviously do to, since you feel the airline should be compelled to allow imams to fly.
So advocating equality and freedom of religion is authoritarian now?

the difference being, a smoker is merely precluded from smoking, not flying. No one is banned for doing an act, they are merely barred from doing that act.

You would ban based soley on belief.

No, I said visible signs of belief. Religious accoutrement, praying openly in public before the flight. That type of thing.

They can still fly, of course, they just have to behave like atheists for the duration. (No religious garb &c.)

For the record, I would prevent someone who was dressed up in a Klan outfit, or Nazi regalia from flying also.

Religion is cult.

WHOA! That's is one of the old ones,... anyways what's your argument/reason on this?

Hmmm this guy has an interesting answer:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/4532

I fail to see how they were acting suspicious, every complaint lodged by the passengers is laughable.

1.) they were speaking Arabic.
So what? At any given airport you will have people speaking different languages, deal with it.
2.) They were moving around the plane.
Hardly a cause to boot someone off the plane.
3.)They asked for seatbelt extensions.
If those count as weapons then so does the human body.
4.)They were expressing anti-U.S. sentiment.
As does 90% of the world, big deal.

If you take away the fact that these guys were Muslims, there is no plausible cause to bar them from flying, which makes this an open and shut case of discrimination.
Neither one of us was there. Maybe something about the way they were moving around the plane was odd. Maybe they were loud and angry-sounding when they were criticizing America. If they're not fat and ask for seatbelt extensions it's odd. Odd things on a plane will draw suspicion. Anyway, we don't know. I was just thinking MAYBE they were trying to make something like this happen. It's possible.

No, I said visible signs of belief. Religious accoutrement, praying openly in public before the flight. That type of thing.

They can still fly, of course, they just have to behave like atheists for the duration. (No religious garb &c.)

For the record, I would prevent someone who was dressed up in a Klan outfit, or Nazi regalia from flying also.

You'd ban free exercise of religion and freedom of expression on airlines and you somehow claim to be more libertarian?

So advocating equality and freedom of religion is authoritarian now?

You don't want to advocate it. You want to enforce it. So yes, it is authoritarian.

WHOA! That's is one of the old ones,... anyways what's your argument/reason on this?

Hmmm this guy has an interesting answer:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/4532Pfffft. the only difference between religion and cult is the opinion of the person who speaks of them.

You don't want to advocate it. You want to enforce it. So yes, it is authoritarian.

Only in the same vague sense that enforcing laws against murder is authoritarian.

I am totally cool with that. Actually, it's sort of a dream of mine.

And a very sane one at that! I totally agree, I mean it, I'm not afraid of you attacking me or anything! *Backs away slowly*

Neither one of us was there. Maybe something about the way they were moving around the plane was odd. Maybe they were loud and angry-sounding when they were criticizing America. If they're not fat and ask for seatbelt extensions it's odd. Odd things on a plane will draw suspicion. Anyway, we don't know. I was just thinking MAYBE they were trying to make something like this happen. It's possible.

The way she was dressed, she was asking for it. The dirty slut.

You'd ban free exercise of religion and freedom of expression on airlines and you somehow claim to be more libertarian?

That's right. Under my system the rules are the same for everyone. No exemptions for belief in the sky pixie. It's really much more equitable.


At home, you are still free to do what you want.

The way she was dressed, she was asking for it. The dirty slut.

Oooooh...you're fighting dirty! :D

Only in the same vague sense that enforcing laws against murder is authoritarian.

Oh please, there is no comparison in preventing someone from praying in a departure lounge and murder.

It's more like preventing someone from smoking in a departure lounge. And people have no problem with that. My bias about what I would ban just runs along different lines.

That's right. Under my system the rules are the same for everyone. No exemptions for belief in the sky pixie. It's really much more equitable.


At home, you are still free to do what you want.

Meh. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Your rules aren't neutral.

The way she was dressed, she was asking for it. The dirty slut.

Well, so much for my hopes of winning this thread.

Oooooh...you're fighting dirty! :D

Well, we weren't there. MAYBE that's what happened. It's possible.

The way she was dressed, she was asking for it. The dirty slut.

I don't get it. I never said the Muslims should have been kicked off the plane. In fact, the first sentence of my first post in this thread says that they probably shouldn't have been kicked off. I just think it's possible that they were looking to start an incident that could lead to a lawsuit.

I just think it's possible that they were looking to start an incident that could lead to a lawsuit.

If I may:

The way she was dressed, she was asking for it. The dirty slut.

You REALLY don't see the analogy?

Oh please, there is no comparison in preventing someone from praying in a departure lounge and murder.

It's more like preventing someone from smoking in a departure lounge. And people have no problem with that. My bias about what I would ban just runs along different lines.

Oh please, unless wearing a cross has been shown to cause cancer, there is no comparison between it and smoking in a departure lounge.

What you would ban goes to the heart of people's identity, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

Your rules aren't neutral.

How is it not neutral? It's a time, manner and place restriction. No religious expression on, in, or around airports or aircraft.

It applies to everyone equally.

Hell, to make it fair, you can throw in a bit about atheists not being allowed to tell other passengers that there is no god, and anyone who believes that there is, is delusional.

See, all fair.

If I may:



You REALLY don't see the analogy?

It's kind of a weak one. Being raped is a traumatic, violent event. Being kicked off a plane is an inconvenience. There is never an excuse for rape. Sometimes it's right to kick someone off a plane. In the end the decision of wheather or not to kick someone off is a judgement call, isn't it? They have to look at the specific behavior and the specific complaints of the other passengers and decide if they have enough reason to eject the passengers. I think the airline exercised bad judgement.

If I may:

You REALLY don't see the analogy?
Thank you...seemed obvious...

How is it not neutral? It's a time, manner and place restriction. No religious expression on, in, or around airports or aircraft.

It applies to everyone equally.

Hell, to make it fair, you can throw in a bit about atheists not being allowed to tell other passengers that there is no god, and anyone who believes that there is, is delusional.

See, all fair.

You know what the problem with that idea of yours is?

Allow me to demonstrate:

How is it not neutral? It's a time, manner and place restriction. Some kind religious expression on, in, or around airports or aircraft.

It applies to everyone equally.

Hell, to make it fair, you can throw in a bit about religious people not being allowed to tell other passengers that there is a god, and anyone who believes that there isn't, is delusional.

See, all fair.

There. You sound like a fundie.

How is it not neutral? It's a time, manner and place restriction. No religious expression on, in, or around airports or aircraft.

It applies to everyone equally.

Hell, to make it fair, you can throw in a bit about atheists not being allowed to tell other passengers that there is no god, and anyone who believes that there is, is delusional.

See, all fair.

You also said you'd ban KKK or Nazi regala. So, is some political expression banned, but not others? Can I wear a Republican pin? How about a US flag pin?

You really see no problem with all religious expression being banned -- including any clothing or symbols? Why not just make them all sit in the back of the plane?

See, all fair.

Now your oppressing people equally, congratulations.

Oh please, unless wearing a cross has been shown to cause cancer, there is no comparison between it and smoking in a departure lounge.

That's the choice of the individual smoking though, so I don't care.

What you would ban goes to the heart of people's identity, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

If the heart of their identity is praying in airport departure lounges, I think they should really reconsider their worldview.

Anway, we stop people from praying during class.

If the heart of their identity is praying in airport departure lounges, I think they should really reconsider their worldview.

Anway, we stop people from praying during class.

Who the fuck are you to decide someone has to reconsider their worldview?

And we stop TEACHERS from FORCING people to pray during class.

I just think it's possible that they were looking to start an incident that could lead to a lawsuit.

Just as it's possible a "rape" victim was indeed asking for it, or lying about it. Both are indeed possible. Hell, it's possible that these "imams" are reptilian shapeshifters. I can't rule that out as a possibility.

But what you are doing is assuming your possibility to be true, not simply suggesting a possibility. And I think you do this because they're Muslims.

You also said you'd ban KKK or Nazi regala. So, is some political expression banned, but not others? Can I wear a Republican pin? How about a US flag pin?

Good point. Also, banned. No advocacy when flying.

Good point. Also, banned. No advocacy when flying.

People don't leave their constitutional rights at a school's doorstep, and they shouldn't have to do so at an airport's gate.

That's the choice of the individual smoking though, so I don't care.

Smoking effects the health and welfare of those in the vicinity. Is that true of wearing a cross?

If the heart of their identity is praying in airport departure lounges, I think they should really reconsider their worldview.

Anway, we stop people from praying during class.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. You have been talking about banning far more than loud praying.

We don't stop people from wearing religious symbols in class.

What about tatoos? Am I banned from flying if I have a cross tatoo?

You really see no problem with all religious expression being banned -- including any clothing or symbols? Why not just make them all sit in the back of the plane?

And yes, I really see no problem with religious expression being banned during flights.

Obviously, religious people wouldn't have to sit at the back of the plane, because no-one would no who they are.

Just as it's possible a "rape" victim was indeed asking for it, or lying about it. Both are indeed possible. Hell, it's possible that these "imams" are reptilian shapeshifters. I can't rule that out as a possibility.

But what you are doing is assuming your possibility to be true, not simply suggesting a possibility. And I think you do this because they're Muslims.

I'm not assuming it to be true. I'm saying it's a possibility. Certainly a more likely one that the reptilian shapeshifter scenario. Also the possibility that a rape victim is lying should be considered. These things can happen. I'm sure that on occasion it has happened.

Smoking effects the health and welfare of those in the vicinity. Is that true of wearing a cross?

That's a highly controversial claim.

Now, I think of it, they used to make smokers sit at the back of the plane.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. You have been talking about banning far more than loud praying.

We don't stop people from wearing religious symbols in class.

What about tatoos? Am I banned from flying if I have a cross tatoo?

So you'd be okay with just banning loud praying?

(You'd have to cover your tattoo. And I would stop people from wearing religious symbols in class also, unless it was a private religious school.)

Who the fuck are you to decide someone has to reconsider their worldview?


A taxpayer who has had enough of subsidizing religion?

A taxpayer who has had enough of subsidizing religion?

You'll claim they forced you to buy the crosses they wear now? I'm in favor of separation between church and state. You're not in favor of separation between church and state, you want the state to favor YOUR church: Atheism.

Actually, I'm not sure about tattoos to be honest. I guess that's a gray area. It would probably depend on the tattoo in question.

You'll claim they forced you to buy the crosses they wear now? I'm in favor of separation between church and state. You're not in favor of separation between church and state, you want the state to favor YOUR church: Atheism.

Pshaw. It's called being tax exempt. These religions don't pay any taxes, yet they use plenty of municipal and federal services and such.

They should be made to fork over their ill gotten gains.

And I don't have a church. I wish I did, because then I could stop paying taxes.

Pshaw. It's called being tax exempt. These religions don't pay any taxes, yet they use plenty of municipal and federal services and such.

They should be made to fork over their ill gotten gains.

And I don't have a church. I wish I did, because then I could stop paying taxes.

You see, there's a difference between "churches should pay taxes" (good) and "religion should not be able to express itself" (fascist).

I hope these Imams win. The only reason I can see for their removal is that they were discriminated against. Even if they did criticise the US, and talk about Saddam, they did nothing wrong. How dare people humiliate them in this way.

I know its disgusting. Airlines are sooo sexist these days. Do you ever hear of muslim women in hijabs being taking off planes? NO! its alwasy men.

damn those sexist airlines....

You see, there's a difference between "churches should pay taxes" (good) and "religion should not be able to express itself" (fascist).

I'll lighten up when they pay their back taxes. Until then, deadbeats who should fit in with the rest of us. (i.e. me.)

I'll lighten up when they pay their back taxes. Until then, deadbeats who should fit in with the rest of us. (i.e. me.)

Hey, everyone! Look! It's the Atheist that wants to start an Inquisition! I'm sure nobody expects that. :rolleyes:

And I never said it couldn't express itself. Just not on airlines.

They can rent a hall and be as religiousy as they like inside.

And I never said it couldn't express itself. Just not on airlines.

They can rent a hall and be as religiousy as they like inside.

This has nothing to do with airlines and everything to do with your prejudice.

This has nothing to do with airlines and everything to do with your prejudice.

Yes, I am prejudiced against religious people. I admit it. They can just deal. I didn't used to be, but their intolerance and constant misrepresentation of atheists and atheism has made me that way.

So they can deal with it.

I also get pissed off that everyone rushes in to defend religion - which has to be one of the most legally protected hobbies in existence - as if it is somehow 'oppressed' or 'under threat' in the west, when the very opposite is true.

Hey, everyone! Look! It's the Atheist that wants to start an Inquisition! I'm sure nobody expects that. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Asshats like you really get on my nerves, and I'm an atheist.

Yes, I am prejudiced against religious people. I admit it. They can just deal. I didn't used to be, but their intolerance and constant misrepresentation of atheists and atheism has made me that way.

Nice wait to blame your own failings on other people, and I think you are the greatest misrepresentation of atheists and atheism.

Yeah. Asshats like you really get on my nerves, and I'm an atheist.

Me or him?

Yes, I am prejudiced against religious people. I admit it. They can just deal. I didn't used to be, but their intolerance and constant misrepresentation of atheists and atheism has made me that way.

So they can deal with it.

I also get pissed off that everyone rushes in to defend religion - which has to be one of the most legally protected hobbies in existence - as if it is somehow 'oppressed' or 'under threat' in the west, when the very opposite is true.

No. You may have become prejudiced against religious people as a result of their "intolerance and constant misrepresentation of atheists..." but that is your own doing.

Nice wait to blame your own failings on other people, and I think you are the greatest misrepresentation of atheists and atheism.

Shows what you know then. And frankly it's not a failing.

You are intolerant of people like fred phelps probably. And you probably don't think that is a failing.

No. You may have become prejudiced against religious people as a result of their "intolerance and constant misrepresentation of atheists..." but that is your own doing.

And they deserve it. Tax cheating deadbeats.

and that's what we call "discrimination". And when you run a business, it's illegal.

The airlines didn't report to authorities the behaviour of the Muslims, passengers did. And passengers (and citizens in general) will discriminate against whoever they want to - not just in America, but around the world. It's every airlines' job to make sure that passengers can safely and quickly report any suspicious activity to authorities, in case there is a terrorist effort involved. The airlines followed rules and laws set by others to follow such reports and search and detain the individuals. It would, in fact, be illegal (or at least highly frowned upon) if they totally ignored the passengers' requests without even looking into it.

And when the constitution isn't enforced?

That's called time for the revolution. (note my absence of gun smileys)

Hey, everyone! Look! It's the Atheist that wants to start an Inquisition! I'm sure nobody expects that. :rolleyes:

Our weapons are fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to . . . nothing.

Me or him?

Mr. Lack-A-Day-Man. Him.

So, why would six imams talk amongst themselves in english??? How would anyone know what they were talking about? And does anyone find it strange when Christians pray before getting on a flight? Also, are ticket numbers and labels in the airplane listed/ displayed in arabic? And, if they're wearing robes and are quite confused at how tight the seatbelts are, how would they figure out how to use seatbelt extenders? Also, what exactly would a seatbelt extender DO to help a terrorist take over a plane? They were also already screened for exposives, so if they were to try anything they were going to hi-jack the plane, without any weapons except seatbelt extenders, on a flight filed with plenty of able-bodied passengers, who weren't afraid. One passenger and two flight attendants made the report, with a few others that sat there, scared out of their minds for no reason, and thats enough to say they were definitely acting like terrorists?

My other issue is that the imams are trying to sue the passengers. DUMB. I can't sue anyone for calling the police on me if i'm jogging through their neighborhood at night. Suing the airline? Yeah, because they own TSA, right? And why exactly is it that this "TSA" can't just deploy an armed Air Marshall on flights that receive complaints, instead of throwing ALL of them blindly on flights filled with school children?

Is it THAT difficult??

Okay, I just have a simple question.

Well, supposedly all muslims are dangerous, according to this theory.


If that were true, wouldn't it be a bad idea to piss them off?

Those imams very deliberately behaved in ways designed to scare passengers and crew members. In other words, they were TERRORIZING them. Therefore, they are terrorists. Moreover, their actions tested security response to such behavior and thus provided valuable information to Al Qaeda and other organizations planning terrorist acts in the US. Furthermore, their aggressive threats to sue everybody are clearly designed to discourage people from objecting to such behavior in the future and thus can not help but facilitate future terrorist acts. So they are clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. engaged in treason. Those imams should be tried for treason and terrorism and swiftly executed. It is us or them - we simply can not both survive in this situation.

Those imams very deliberately behaved in ways designed to scare passengers and crew members. In other words, they were TERRORIZING them. Therefore, they are terrorists. Moreover, their actions tested security response to such behavior and thus provided valuable information to Al Qaeda and other organizations planning terrorist acts in the US. Furthermore, their aggressive threats to sue everybody are clearly designed to discourage people from objecting to such behavior in the future and thus can not help but facilitate future terrorist acts. So they are clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. engaged in treason. Those imams should be tried for treason and terrorism and swiftly executed. It is us or them - we simply can not both survive in this situation.

The hell?

From what the article said, they weren't trying to scare the passengers. They weren't violent, just disruptive-- there is a difference. The reason they are suing is that the securoty officers discriminated against them just because they were Muslim.

Acting inappropriately on a plane does not constitute a terrorist attack. They should pay some fines or get a warning, but execution is far too extreme.

Those imams very deliberately behaved in ways designed to scare passengers and crew members. In other words, they were TERRORIZING them. Therefore, they are terrorists. Moreover, their actions tested security response to such behavior and thus provided valuable information to Al Qaeda and other organizations planning terrorist acts in the US. Furthermore, their aggressive threats to sue everybody are clearly designed to discourage people from objecting to such behavior in the future and thus can not help but facilitate future terrorist acts. So they are clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. engaged in treason. Those imams should be tried for treason and terrorism and swiftly executed. It is us or them - we simply can not both survive in this situation.

You're crazy. You can't put people on trial for being Muslim. Skip the trial and beat them to death with their own severed limbs. Either that or you just deal with them like you would any other passenger who was acting that way.

Those imams very deliberately behaved in ways designed to scare passengers and crew members. In other words, they were TERRORIZING them. Therefore, they are terrorists. Moreover, their actions tested security response to such behavior and thus provided valuable information to Al Qaeda and other organizations planning terrorist acts in the US. Furthermore, their aggressive threats to sue everybody are clearly designed to discourage people from objecting to such behavior in the future and thus can not help but facilitate future terrorist acts. So they are clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. engaged in treason. Those imams should be tried for treason and terrorism and swiftly executed. It is us or them - we simply can not both survive in this situation.

You're so spectacularly wrong that it is almost unprecedented in my reading history on NSG. I'm quite impressed :)

The airlines didn't report to authorities the behaviour of the Muslims, passengers did. And passengers (and citizens in general) will discriminate against whoever they want to - not just in America, but around the world. It's every airlines' job to make sure that passengers can safely and quickly report any suspicious activity to authorities, in case there is a terrorist effort involved. The airlines followed rules and laws set by others to follow such reports and search and detain the individuals. It would, in fact, be illegal (or at least highly frowned upon) if they totally ignored the passengers' requests without even looking into it.what law requires flight personnel to be complete buttholes?

Those imams very deliberately behaved in ways designed to scare passengers and crew members. In other words, they were TERRORIZING them. Therefore, they are terrorists. Moreover, their actions tested security response to such behavior and thus provided valuable information to Al Qaeda and other organizations planning terrorist acts in the US. Furthermore, their aggressive threats to sue everybody are clearly designed to discourage people from objecting to such behavior in the future and thus can not help but facilitate future terrorist acts. So they are clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. engaged in treason. Those imams should be tried for treason and terrorism and swiftly executed. It is us or them - we simply can not both survive in this situation.lol
you should take acting lessons... :p

If they actually cursed the UN and praised Saddam Hussein while chanting in Arabic before the flight, then they got what they deserved. Who the hell does all that before a flight? That's retarded (again if they actually did it and it wasn't overreacting on the passengers' behalf).

If they actually cursed the UN and praised Saddam Hussein while chanting in Arabic before the flight, then they got what they deserved. Who the hell does all that before a flight? That's retarded (again if they actually did it and it wasn't overreacting on the passengers' behalf).Oh please, what do Americans hear out of an Arabic conversation? Americans hear what they want to hear out of such a chat. Imams talking about or even praising Saddam Hussein? As if that made any sense...

Okay, I just have a simple question.

Well, supposedly all muslims are dangerous, according to this theory.


If that were true, wouldn't it be a bad idea to piss them off?

It's America, stoopid. :p

Oh please, what do Americans hear out of an Arabic conversation? Americans hear what the want to hear out of such a chat. Imams talking about or even praising Saddam Hussein? As if that made any sense...

"Allah, bless the secular dictator..." Wait, what?

Its hard for me to say which side is "right," based on the account given. Muslims praying before a flight is very normal in light of the vigorous praying schedule expected of the laity, let alone Imams, though had they actually been scattered throughout the plane I could see how the passengers would be nervous and report to the airline authorities. Perhaps the airline ticket seller is responsible, but the public must base its info on the immediate information, especially when hundreds of lives could be at stake within a few hours time. While I certainly despise discriminatory behavior toward any ethnic/religious/social/biological group, the Imams should recognize the 'climate' we're living in and make some efforts to not 'stick out' in a potentially hostile-looking manner if possible in a setting where the actions of a few sketchy individuals can mean the death of all involved. [Whether they could have or not in this situation isn't obvious to me]

However, the idea of suing passengers for reporting suspicious behavior is utterly ridiculous. I can see possibly bringing suit against the authorities for any abusive or capricious behavior that may have occurred, but acting against (very likely) fearful citizens who are looking out for their own and the public's safety is ignorant if not malicious. Unless the Imams believe they have solid evidence against particular passengers, I don't see how such a suit will come about.

Ironically, I wouldn't expect Imams to carry out suicide bombings or similar attacks. The clergy (of the militant sects) prefer to live on to rule and lead the brave new world of Jihad; early martyrdom is for the poor 'foot soldiers.'

Provided the event transpired as the passengers state, then the arabs deserve to be thrown for rank stupidity if nothing else.

In any case, why, if genuine security concerns are raised, should the sensibilities of a few uppity muslims preclude the security of the majority being sought?

Its hard for me to say which side is "right," based on the account given. Muslims praying before a flight is very normal in light of the vigorous praying schedule expected of the laity, let alone Imams, though had they actually been scattered throughout the plane I could see how the passengers would be nervous and report to the airline authorities. Perhaps the airline ticket seller is responsible, but the public must base its info on the immediate information, especially when hundreds of lives could be at stake within a few hours time. While I certainly despise discriminatory behavior toward any ethnic/religious/social/biological group, the Imams should recognize the 'climate' we're living in and make some efforts to not 'stick out' in a potentially hostile-looking manner if possible in a setting where the actions of a few sketchy individuals can mean the death of all involved. [Whether they could have or not in this situation isn't obvious to me]

However, the idea of suing passengers for reporting suspicious behavior is utterly ridiculous. I can see possibly bringing suit against the authorities for any abusive or capricious behavior that may have occurred, but acting against (very likely) fearful citizens who are looking out for their own and the public's safety is ignorant if not malicious. Unless the Imams believe they have solid evidence against particular passengers, I don't see how such a suit will come about.

Ironically, I wouldn't expect Imams to carry out suicide bombings or similar attacks. The clergy (of the militant sects) prefer to live on to rule and lead the brave new world of Jihad; early martyrdom is for the poor 'foot soldiers.'racist scum. :rolleyes:

the Imams should recognize the 'climate' we're living in and make some efforts to not 'stick out' in a potentially hostile-looking manner if possible in a setting where the actions of a few sketchy individuals can mean the death of all involved.so they should basically take care of your hysteria?

United Belerian, I wouldn't consider reacting to possible threats from ACTUAL organizations (and lone cells) that HAVE attacked airplanes within, outside, and approaching the USA to be "hysteria." Additionally, it seems very unlikely that passengers would have gone out of their way to simply harass a group of individuals in this manner since it would interfere with their own flight schedules!

United Belerian, I wouldn't consider reacting to possible threats from ACTUAL organizations (and lone cells) that HAVE attacked airplanes within, outside, and approaching the USA to be "hysteria." Additionally, it seems very unlikely that passengers would have gone out of their way to simply harass a group of individuals in this manner since it would interfere with their own flight schedules!In the current persistent hysteria in America when it comes to flying, every action targeted at Muslims is likely. And what ACTUAL organizations (and lone cells) HAVE attacked airplanes within, outside, and approaching the USA? That would surely have been in the international media, right?

I am Troll, hear me roar!

Translated.

Provided the event transpired as the passengers state, then the arabs deserve to be thrown for rank stupidity if nothing else.

In any case, why, if genuine security concerns are raised, should the sensibilities of a few uppity muslims preclude the security of the majority being sought?

Define genuine security concerns. Speaking in a foreign language to your companions is a security concern? Even if the conversation transpired exactly as the passengers stated (Which I doubt) then their accused of speaking arabic, criticising the US and mentioning Saddam Hussein.

Personally I missed the bit in the airport/airline regulations that banned these things.

Translated.

:D:D:D

Translated.

:D :fluffle:

Define genuine security concerns. Speaking in a foreign language to your companions is a security concern? Even if the conversation transpired exactly as the passengers stated (Which I doubt) then their accused of speaking arabic, criticising the US and mentioning Saddam Hussein.

Personally I missed the bit in the airport/airline regulations that banned these things.

A security can, provided one is intelligent, be adapted to any context aboard any aircraft. I can't directly speak for the passengers aboard the flight in question, however, months ago, British passengers had Islamic passengers removed for behaving suspiciously both at entry, and upon the plane, whilst conversing agitatedly in Arabic, and wearing heavy skiing coats upon a flight from a Spanish Island. Sufficient to merit a security concern?

Translated.:eek: :D :D

A security can, provided one is intelligent, be adapted to any context aboard any aircraft. I can't directly speak for the passengers aboard the flight in question, however, months ago, British passengers had Islamic passengers removed for behaving suspiciously both at entry, and upon the plane, whilst conversing agitatedly in Arabic, and wearing heavy skiing coats upon a flight from a Spanish Island. Sufficient to merit a security concern?Then just search them and if they have nothing they have nothing and the hysteria is over. There is no need to turn around a plane only based on suspicion.

Then just search them and if they have nothing they have nothing and the hysteria is over. There is no need to turn around a plane only based on suspicion.

Why on earth would one turn a plane around on a run way?:confused:

In the current persistent hysteria in America when it comes to flying, every action targeted at Muslims is likely. And what ACTUAL organizations (and lone cells) HAVE attacked airplanes within, outside, and approaching the USA? That would surely have been in the international media, right?

Fear of attacks on airplanes is not hysterical but actually quite rational considering the magnitude of losses that occur when they do happen. Fearing that any given Muslim is a bomber is hysterical, but it appears that the passengers did have reason to suspect the imams based on their behavior (as has been argued earlier in the thread).

Concerning those groups that have or wish to attack planes, there's ol' Al Qaeda of course with 9-11, some state groups involved in bombings (Libya stands out with the Pan Am incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_73), those behind the 2006 transatlantic bombing plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot), the attempt of "shoe bomber" Richard Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Colvin_Reid), and so on.

Is the troll full now?

The hell?

From what the article said, they weren't trying to scare the passengers. They weren't violent, just disruptive-- there is a difference. The reason they are suing is that the securoty officers discriminated against them just because they were Muslim.

Acting inappropriately on a plane does not constitute a terrorist attack. They should pay some fines or get a warning, but execution is far too extreme.

Back when it actually happened, I read more detailed accounts and was left without any doubt as to whether those guys were terrorists - they were. It was a deliberate provocation. There could be only two possible goals:

1) Test security procedures, responses etc. Even if that was not their intention, objectively they gathered valuable intelligence for terrorists. It's basically the same thing as when Russian bombers approach American airspace - they are not attacking (yet), but they are gathering information about US intercept capabilities, response time etc.

2) Provoke a reaction and then sue. While their purpose might have been just to get a multi-million dollar settlement, objectively, again, they aid terrorists by intimidating TSA and airline employees and the general traveling public.

Back when it actually happened, I read more detailed accounts and was left without any doubt as to whether those guys were terrorists - they were. It was a deliberate provocation. There could be only two possible goals:

1) Test security procedures, responses etc. Even if that was not their intention, objectively they gathered valuable intelligence for terrorists. It's basically the same thing as when Russian bombers approach American airspace - they are not attacking (yet), but they are gathering information about US intercept capabilities, response time etc.

2) Provoke a reaction and then sue. While their purpose might have been just to get a multi-million dollar settlement, objectively, again, they aid terrorists by intimidating TSA and airline employees and the general traveling public.

You know, you're intimidating people by throwing around accusations of terrorism. Therefore, you're TERRORIZING people. Therefore, you're committing treason and are a terrorist.

I hope you turn yourself into the Department of Homeland Security, Abdul.

You know, you're intimidating people by throwing around accusations of terrorism. Therefore, you're TERRORIZING people. Therefore, you're committing treason and are a terrorist.

I hope you turn yourself into the Department of Homeland Security, Abdul.

Don't worry, I'm going to sue him for mental trauma, in fact, lawsuits all round.:)

Back when it actually happened, I read more detailed accounts and was left without any doubt as to whether those guys were terrorists - they were. It was a deliberate provocation. There could be only two possible goals:

1) Test security procedures, responses etc. Even if that was not their intention, objectively they gathered valuable intelligence for terrorists. It's basically the same thing as when Russian bombers approach American airspace - they are not attacking (yet), but they are gathering information about US intercept capabilities, response time etc.

2) Provoke a reaction and then sue. While their purpose might have been just to get a multi-million dollar settlement, objectively, again, they aid terrorists by intimidating TSA and airline employees and the general traveling public.

Reason and facts will get you nowhere with this crowd, you should know that.

It was a publicity stunt and they WANTED to get pulled from the plain exactly so they could sue.

Don't worry, I'm going to sue him for mental trauma, in fact, lawsuits all round.:)

I'm serious! He's saying exactly the kind of divisive, demoralizing things that a terrorist agent would say. By spreading animosity between Americans, making them question the very tenets of freedom and liberty, he is playing the role of a fifth column jihadist, sewing seeds of malcontent and paving the way for eventual Islamofascist revolution! The fact that he's speaking against Muslims is only proof that he's engaged in a disinformation campaign, a black flag operation!

Very clever, very clever Midlands. But I'm not fooled. You won't find anyone worshipping Saddam Hussein here!

I am Puppet, hear me fake agreement.

Translated.

Yes, I am prejudiced against religious people. I admit it. They can just deal. I didn't used to be, but their intolerance and constant misrepresentation of atheists and atheism has made me that way.

So they can deal with it.

I also get pissed off that everyone rushes in to defend religion - which has to be one of the most legally protected hobbies in existence - as if it is somehow 'oppressed' or 'under threat' in the west, when the very opposite is true.
"Constant misrepresentation of athiesm"? Could that be perhaps athiests being prejudiced against religions, as you say you are?

Basically it's the "All Muslims are terrorists with Bin Ladin on Speed Dial" theory of airline security.

History repeats itself.

I grew up in a town of 1000 people in western Nebraska. Most of the people were of German ancestry. During the World Wars people in this little village were not allowed to speak German lest they were on "party line" (didn't have private lines much less speed dial back then) with Hitler.

Consequently, the kids my age grew up not knowing German. A loss based on fear.

I think they just heard something thay MAY have been Arabic and made a lot of assumptions afterward. I don't think Islamic terrorists are going to pray when they are on the plane, they do that before. When they know which way Mecca is.

History repeats itself.

I grew up in a town of 1000 people in western Nebraska. Most of the people were of German ancestry. During the World Wars people in this little village were not allowed to speak German lest they were on "party line" (didn't have private lines much less speed dial back then) with Hitler.

Consequently, the kids my age grew up not knowing German. A loss based on fear.

Pretty sad and tragic. But the German and Italian-Americans got off lightly in comparison to the Japanese-Americans, nearly all of whom had their properties confiscated and were sent to internment camps on the "All Japanese are on the party line with Tojo" mentality following Pearl Harbor.

Post 9/11 and with Guantanamo and the alleged Black Facilities among other precedents, it would not take too much more to where Muslims are rounded off and shipped to internment camps themselves.

History is indeed repeating itself.

Fear of attacks on airplanes is not hysterical but actually quite rational considering the magnitude of losses that occur when they do happen. Fearing that any given Muslim is a bomber is hysterical, but it appears that the passengers did have reason to suspect the imams based on their behavior (as has been argued earlier in the thread).

Concerning those groups that have or wish to attack planes, there's ol' Al Qaeda of course with 9-11, some state groups involved in bombings (Libya stands out with the Pan Am incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_73), those behind the 2006 transatlantic bombing plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot), the attempt of "shoe bomber" Richard Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Colvin_Reid), and so on.

Is the troll full now?So you have 7 flights in 20 years out of how many flights? And in what way is a Muslim bitching about seat belts suspicious? These folks just have a problem with Muslims, that's all.

Reason and facts will get you nowhere with this crowd, you should know that.

It was a publicity stunt and they WANTED to get pulled from the plain exactly so they could sue.Um, they are Muslims, not Scientologists.

History repeats itself.

I grew up in a town of 1000 people in western Nebraska. Most of the people were of German ancestry. During the World Wars people in this little village were not allowed to speak German lest they were on "party line" (didn't have private lines much less speed dial back then) with Hitler.

Consequently, the kids my age grew up not knowing German. A loss based on fear.Yeah, God bless America! :rolleyes:

Post 9/11 and with Guantanamo and the alleged Black Facilities among other precedents, it would not take too much more to where Muslims are rounded off and shipped to internment camps themselves.

History is indeed repeating itself.

You can't choose your ethnicity. You can choose your ideology. If they want to be treated good, they should drop their train wreck of a religion.

You can't choose your ethnicity. You can choose your ideology. If they want to be treated good, they should drop their train wreck of a religion.They were not Christians, you know.