Which is why I asked this...

If you're going to remove someone from the plane because they could potentially be dangerous, that's one thing. To be afraid of a saying on a shirt, and to ask the man to remove it, while still allowing him to fly, is ridiculous... and pointless.

You have to wonder then, was the offending person just blatantly a bigot?

Dang those people must have thought it was a magical shirt. Put it on and you have terrorist abilities.....take it off and you're just an average Joe Shmoe. Good looking out JFK authorities :rolleyes:

This particluar story shory should home in on the point that the person that threatens to blow up a plane may very well look like you


http://www.ajc.com/services/content/...svc=7&cxcat=13

Video: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=6592616

i'm not racist, my best friend's middle eastern. i even had one in my house a few years ago.

i always figured it's to make people feel dumb for being wrong.

where can i buy that shirt? i need 240,000 dollars

^^^^^

justifying infringing on people's rights.

I just have one deliver pizza 10 mins ago....MMmmmm...Im still alive!

It'll just kill you in twenty years with a heart attack when you least expect it!:eek: Terrorist!!

Imma sue Al Kaydar an'nem!!!

Where is Al Sharpton when I need him??

Just a little FYI for those who still don't understand why Arabs hate Israel (and the US support of it)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...k-1230046.html

thanks for posting that, it was a good read


I read an article the other day -in print, no links, sorry- by some Israeli writer and he suggested that peace would only come through a secularization of the region (Palestine/Israel and their shared/disputed land)

Good job for Egypt though, for trying to get peace

Hmmm...Over Christmas, I was talking to my (VERY evangelical) parents about the situation. They have a religious basis for protecting Israel at all costs, regardless of what Israel has ever done. I asked them if Israel was completely innocent in all that has happened. To them, it doesn't matter.

I don't believe in killing, period, so I'm in favor of peace all the way around.

Yeah, good luck with that.

A question for the lawyers, if US Transportation Security Authority officials hadn't been involved could the airline on its own legally prevented him from flying? On the one hand it seems like they could have whatever dress codes for their passengers they wanted to put in place and enforce consistently. On the other, because in this case it's the guy's ethnicity that makes the shirt threatening to some people, they'd be discriminating against him probably to address the dress code issue. So, could the airline probably have gotten away with saying, turn your shirt inside out or we won't let you on the flight?

I have another question too that I wondered what you all thought about. How much should the desire to avoiding racial or ethnic discrimination overrule the use of correlations that seem to have pretty good validity in law enforcement, assuming that any really existed?

Obviously, expecting all the members of a racial, ethnic or religious group to just accept that they already have one profile "strike" against them and therefore have to bear a certain loss of civil liberties is crazy and wrong.

But if you watch and read as much kind of "true crime" crap as I do, there are frequently repeated claims like most serial killers are white guys and that it's especially rare for serial killers to seek victims of a different race. If these claims bore out statistically, is it okay for law enforcement agents to focus more scrutiny on suspects of certain races, assuming that there are other non-racial reason that the people came under suspicion?

ETA: obviously, my serial killer example involves a specific crime that the police know has already been committed and most "profiling" seems to me to be about preventing a crime that hasn't happened yet when were talking airlines or an assumption about a crime that might be occurring but that there's no definitive proof off like drug transportation. Does that matter if it's you that the police think might be guilty based partially on your race?

My mom said something similar the other day when we were talking about this (and also about the 7 signs of the end of the world...or whatever its called). According to my mom, the Israel from biblical times was just as vicious as present-day Israel, so their actions shouldn't be a surprise.

Secularization? Not gonna happen. It might be better for Israel to do it (since all 3 religions are very prevalent in Israel) but Palestine is ruled too much by Islam to be able to separate them.

There might be some kind of "peace" if Israel would just do what they say and stops occupying Gaza & the West Bank.

That's not 100% true. Yes, Hamas is an Islamic based movement, but Fatah is far from an Islamic base movement. It's more of a Pan-Arabic movement with secular ideology. Some of Fatah's higher ranks are Christians.

Fatah itself has an "observer" status with the Socialist International

Did I say it was justified? There are many things that are a reality but are not justified. In some cases it is justified (thinking.. FBI psychological profiling of serial killers, which tends to be very accurate) and in some cases it is not (assuming that a husband killed a wife who has disappeared). Profiling occurs in every walk of life and in almost every situation. Life insurance companies do it (raising rates for smokers and people with chronic illnesses), marketing and advertising agencies do it (beer ads during football games, make up ads during Lipstick Jungle), auto companies market certain cars to certain people. If a newborn is found in a highschool bathroom, they don't search the local nursing home for 85 year old men who may have done it. It's not always an infringement on people's rights. Sometimes it is. It can be a way of narrowing down who you're looking for. If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I cited times that it didn't make sense, so please don't take it out of context.

Ladies and gentlemen welcome Starang.

This thread's maturity level has just dropped to a record low. Can we have some mature, adult discussion back please?

Ugh. As someone who is Jewish, has lived in Israel, and has many friends in the Israeli military, I find it hard to post here since it is clear where most of the sentiment is. I would take articles like the one posted with a grain of salt, as they are clearly writing from a biased point of view. For one, Palestinians in the last 10 years have been increasing using women and "children" (I don't really see a 16-17 year old with a gun as a child but that's just me) for their suicide attacks, as they would be less suspicious. Many of the women and children reported killed are killed while inside the Hamas compounds being bombed, as they are the wives and children of the people the Israelis are trying to eliminate. While it is regrettable that these things happen, it is a part of war. I found it interesting when a Palestinian rocket aimed at an Israeli city went astray earlier in the year and killed a bunch of Palestinian children, there wasn't a single mention of it on CNN. I'm sorry if I'm rambling a bit, it just drives me crazy how slanted news coverage and the UN are on this issue.

Would you pull all of your military out of an area that at every chance keeps attacking your country? Come on, be reasonable... There are people on both sides who are largely in the minority and perpetuate this situation, but to blame one side or the other is pretty ridiculous IMHO.

To address the quote about ancient Israel being aggressive, if you/your mother actually read up on a bit of history, ancient Israel was constantly being attacked by the Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Babylonians, the list goes on. They weren't going around conquering more land. The only offensive battle I can ever remember hearing about by the ancient Israelis (Judea) was the battle of Jericho, in which they initially took the land of Israel.

I also resent the term aggressive. Israel is constantly provoked by countries whose leaders want every man, woman and child there dead. The Israelis do things no other army would do (drop leaflets ahead of time warning of bombings for one). Sorry I need to stop posting about this before I blow my top haha...

Both sides are to blame, but if your going to make a "promise" (of sorts) keep it. Israel gave those two territories to the Palestinians, yet continue to occupy the land. Yes they should pull out of "Palestine." Pulling out doesn't not mean they should stop protecting themselves, but Israel should protect themselves on their side, instead of keeping their soldiers on Palestinian "land."

Palestine is as much to blame as Israel, but let's not pretend that Israel is innocent either. Let's not forget they were the one that broke the ceasefire on the 4th of Nov, and again on the 18th of Nov. (according to the UN)

You can resent the term aggressive, doesn't mean it isn't true. You think other countries want all men, women and children of Israel dead? Hmmm...how many women and children in Gaza have died by the hands of the Israelis in the past week or so? Come on now.

ETA: Numbers don't lie. Numbers aren't slanted/biased. As of Jan 8.--763 Palestinians had died in Gaza, most of them children, while another 3000+ were injured. How many Israelis have been injured/killed?

For one, many Israelis do not believe the Palestinians should have any land, and had no say in the matter (these are usually the more religious hard-liners). If you think about this from any other countries perspective, whether it is land that they gave to the other people or another country altogether, if they have the military might and are being constantly attacked, they will occupy that country to ensure these attacks are minimized... It's basic logic. I feel for the citizens of Gaza, because most of them just want a home in which to raise their children and live their lives, but when you make a stupid decision like they did in 2006, electing a known terrorist group as the leaders of your region, it really isn't going to end well for you. I really feel for the 43% who voted for the much more levelheaded Fatah party.

"Palestine" is not attacking Israel at every chance they get, but the Hamas militants are, and this has been going on for some time now, Israel has just gotten sick of it's citizens dying/being injured and its property being destroyed.

If you cannot see the distinction between a national ideology of exterminating an entire race of people and collateral deaths due to the enemy constantly hiding itself amongst the civilian population, I really can't have a reasonable conversation with you on this topic. Also, as I previously pointed out, some of those "women and children" being killed are either militants or the wives/children of militants. As I said before... I hardly consider a 16 year old wielding an AK-47 a child.

I agree totally. I joined International Fellowship of Christians & Jews for that purpose and to help the cause of Israel. I dont agree with everything Israel does. I dont agree with everything the USA does. But I will defend both at all costs. This is not a war based on land or history. It is based on theology. I personally believe Israel has a biblical mandate to that land.

Oh well then that makes it alright :rolleyes:

Well that's the problem (Israel not believing Palestine has any rights to the land). I mean, who's land it was prior to 1948? Pretty sure it was Palestine until the British (and several other countries) gave the land back to the survivors of the Holocaust, and that is where the trouble really began.

You do have a point about occupying the land, but Israel isn't just occupying the land and attacking when needed. They are killing Palestinians without being provoked by them first. That isn't just "occupying" anymore.

I totally agree with you, I feel for the people of Gaza. I don't think they knew what they were getting into when Hamas was elected. And Israel does have a right to protect themselves. With that said, I DO believe Israel is going a little too far. They claim they won't stop until Hamas is exterminated, but is that even feasible? If one Hamas leader is killed, there will just be another one to take his place. Instead of constantly bombing houses, schools, "churches," etc, and claiming there were weapons (have any of those claims been proven true yet?) they should be a little more secretive. Infiltrate Gaza and find the true Hamas members, instead of blind bombings.

True, 16 yr olds are not children, but I hope you aren't thinking those are what are being considered "children" cause I KNOW there are infants, toddlers, etc that are dieing.


ETA:
Well if we are gonna go there, then Israel only has a "biblical mandate" to part of the land they currently claim. (According to the maps in my bible) The biblical Israel stopped short of Jerusalem, and extends into present day Jordan. The Gaza strip (and the land around it) was not Israel but Philistia and the land from Jerusalem down was Judah and Edom.

You can see what land biblical Israel claimed and what current day Israel claims here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/kingdoms.gif

Yes, lets not kill the militants because they are women or under 18... Great war strategy! :rolleyes:

Firing over 8,000 rockets into Israel since 2007 isn't sufficient provocation? Do we need to wait for the big 10k mark or something?

Addressing whether any of the claims of weapons are proven/true, the big news story that a UN school was bombed rarely came along with the interesting tidbit that both Israelis and Palestinian witnesses admitted that about 10 minutes before the shelling, a bunch of rockets had been fired in Israel from that spot. Yes, some infants and toddlers are dying, but the large numbers being reported include the 14-17 year old militants that are a major part of Hamas.

See this is where you and I are probably getting our wires crossed.
I DO believe Israel has a right to retaliate. So they should retaliate on the land that is firing those rockets. BUT, I believe that Israel should fire from their land. They don't have to occupy Gaza or the West Bank to retaliate.

Israel might not be condoning it, but I do believe the Israeli soldiers that occupy the West Bank/Gaza sometimes take things into their own hands. So they don't have to be provoked to fire on an cars/trucks/ambulances/etc carrying Palestinian children (and they weren't 14-17 year olds), etc.

FWIW, NPR (relatively unbiased, I believe) reported that 28 Israelis have died as a result of rocket attacks since 1999. Most of the rockets have until fairly recently been laughably inept.

Elephant in the room no one is discussing - the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

I see similar attitude in the press and it strikes me as insane.

Israel can fight back, but it's required to do so with one arm tied behind its back, basically?

No.

Imagine a situation that a group of Canadians fired rockets at civilian areas in New York. Also imagine that the Canadian government is unwilling to do anything to prevent it and is actually politically affiliated with the group engaged in the rocket fire. You think the appropriate response disallows a ground war? That's crazy to me. The obligation to defend New Yorkers is much greater than the obligation to the country harboring people killing New Yorkers.

Oddly, changing the situation to parallel that the land the Canadians were firing from had been land previously occupied by the US makes me think that the mistake was in withdrawing from the land in the first place.

I think Israel has right to exist and protect itself. I have much greater faith in Israel to leave other "countries" alone if they would just leave it alone and make an active effort to suppress groups they harbor who seek to harm Israel. If they fail to do so, then Israel must act.

(Did you see the articles that suggested that the rockets from Gaza were getting increasingly likely to hit an nuclear power plant in Israel? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430133.ece. Doesn't that provide the kind of urgency that puts concerns about temporary "occupation" on the back burner?)

And what is it that you think they were trying to prevent getting in?

^^^^^

plummeted the average IQ in this thread into the negatives.

there has been mature adult discussion on this board about race in the past. you just aren't equipped to contribute.

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to get at. How would Israel be fighting with "one hand tied behind it's back?" If the US & Canada (per your analogy) started fighting, would we be fighting w/ one hand tied behind our back because we aren't occupying Canada? No.

Yes, they were probably were trying to prevent guns & such to enter Gaza, and I totally agree with that. But by putting a blockade on that, they also prevented much needed supplies (like food) to enter Gaza. That is the reason that the UN had asked for a ceasefire (back in Oct/Nov) in the first place, to prevent the people of Gaza from starvation.


ETA: Maybe I should try to clarify what I mean when I say that Israel shouldn't be "occupying" West Bank/Gaza. I mean that Israel should take away the blockades, and checkpoints they have set up in those areas. Those checkpoints are not allowing Palestinians to go from point A to point B within their "own land."

It seemed that your definition of occupation is engaging in a ground war if you think that Israel recently started occupying Gaza in response to the rockets. Maybe I misunderstood.

ETA: I just think it's really odd that people seem to willingly suppress the knowledge of why Israel is engaging in checkpoints and blockades. It doesn't seem to be anything other than self-defense to me. If Gaza's leadership were willing to actively prevent attacks on Israel themselves, I doubt Israel would find blockages and checkpoints necessary. But instead, we have Hamas.

Yeah, I apologize. I'm pretty sure I worded myself wrong, so it wasn't that you misunderstood.

I just keep remembering a PBS/Frontline documentary I watched several years ago about life in the West Bank. They showed how hard it was to travel just in the West Bank b/c Israel has set up so many checkpoints.

That is what I meant by "occupying." I think if Israel would do away with those type of checkpoints, and allow Palestinians to move freely within the land (I only know about West Bank, i'm not sure how it is in Gaza) it might help.

I would agree, if the checkpoints were set up in Israel (and around the borders). I do understand why the checkpoints are there, but to have to so many (well at the time the documentary was filmed) is unnecessary.

I distinctly remember one part of the documentary where they were traveling with a Palestinian family. The family was going to a different area of the West Bank to celebrate a family member's birthday. They went through one or two checkpoints alright, but then weren't allowed through another because they weren't "dressed right." So they weren't allowed to pass, so they turned around and tried to head home, but got stopped at another checkpoint (one that they had passed through fine several minutes before). They weren't allowed to pass through that checkpoint, and weren't able to get home, they were stuck in that area of the West Bank (overnight, or until the Israeli soldier allowed them to pass through).

That, I think is unneccessary. What "self-defense" is Israel trying to prevent with that family? They had all the paperwork they needed to show @ the checkpoints, and the camera guy confirmed they were going to a party.

Yeah, there's was a time I might have been optimistic too, but that's not what I've actually observed in my lifetime.

It seems to be much more a case that whenever Israel makes a concession, anti-Israel groups see it as a sign of weakness.

I mean theoretically, Israel withdrawing from the Gaza strip and bulldozing Israeli settlements a few years ago ought to have done a lot of good, but no.

Exactly. It's a lose-lose situation for both sides.

Do I think there can ever be peace? I do. The people in Gaza have to see that Hamas isn't doing much for them, surely isn't living up to the "bringer of peace" type image they have tried to portray, and they have to be fed up enough to stand up to Hamas. Hamas is only as powerful as the people allow them to be. There has to be concessions on both sides.

Where'd you see Hamas as a "bringer of peace" type thing?

I heard it in an MSNBC special a few day ago. They spoke to an ex-Hamas member, and he said Hamas members (and leaders) were killing each other in Gaza, and in Israeli prisons. So then the reporter mentioned something about how they aren't living up to what they claimed to be doing--bringing peace.

ETA: The reporter had said that is why Hamas gained power in Gaza in the first place. Honestly, I don't really know too much about Hamas, so i'm not sure if that is accurate or not.

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

Ahh thanks. I guess I haven't learned not to believe everything reporters tell you! haha.

And that is definitely true about suicide bombers and such. I guess, to me it's more logical that they would be suicide bombers if they were traveling from the West Bank to Israel, instead of traveling within the West Bank (and without a British camerapeople).