Now my favorite: US Airways

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Once on board, they left their seats and sat in what is recognized as a pattern Al Qaieda uses to test the security of a plane-- blocking both the entrances and exits.

Could I get a primary-source cite on this? The Washington Times op/ed self-refers, and refers to another op/ed piece - any major outlets reporting this? Also, who recognized this?

Originally Posted by blueangel

They also asked for seat belt extenders that they did not need. Then they tucked them below their seats. Witnesses say they then made more anti-American comments.

While the seat belt extensions are really up for interpretation, I'm 100% sure we don't want to rely on "making anti-American statements" in any way whatsoever - unless you're comfortable pissing on the Constitution?

Also the reports conflict, saying they made anti-American references in Arabic without any explanation of how this was known . . . this is quickly turning into journalistic/editorial onanism, in my opinion, when it comes to determining "facts."

Originally Posted by blueangel

Are we expected to accept all behavior, no matter how suspicious and how outlandish, in the name of political correctness?

I do agree with you here - I just don't think this is very cut-and-dried, and I think media reports are really pooping the bed here. It's a soapbox more than an illustrative example for either side.

[blueangel]

While the seat belt extensions are really up for interpretation, I'm 100% sure we don't want to rely on "making anti-American statements" in any way whatsoever - unless you're comfortable pissing on the Constitution?

You can't say "bomb" in an airport, and you can't yell "fire." There is a limit to the Constitution. While putting down the U.S. does not violate "freedom of speech"-- it was not a single reason why they were removed from the airplane. It is the combination of their suspicious actions which resulted in their removal.

"A half-dozen Muslims were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis on Monday evening after nervous passengers alerted the flight crew about suspicious behavior.
The men, who officials later learned were Islamic religious leaders, refused to leave the plane and were escorted by security off Flight 300 from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to Phoenix at 6:30 p.m.
Conflicting reports say the men were praying in the concourse or on the plane, and a Minnesota television reported that the imams were chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah," as they left the plane.
Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, a private organization that investigates terrorist threats, said his contacts are reporting the men did begin the prayers in the concourse, then continued prayers and discussions once on board.
"One of the passengers who understands Arabic passed a note to the crew that what she heard, she did not like," Mr. Hagmann said.
Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the men reportedly made anti-American statements relating to the Iraq war, asked to change seats once inside the cabin, and that one requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it.
"There was some peculiar behavior," Mr. Hagmann said."http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061121-105648-5375r.htm

Also the reports conflict, saying they made anti-American references in Arabic without any explanation of how this was known . . . this is quickly turning into journalistic/editorial onanism, in my opinion, when it comes to determining "facts."

You're right, the reports are different. It is a "he said, she said" account of what was said. There will always be different interpretations by witnesses as to what actually happened. However, news reports say that one of the passengers who understood Arabic notified the crew what she heard:

"One of the passengers who understands Arabic passed a note to the crew that what she heard, she did not like," Mr. Hagmann said."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5648-5375r.htm

I do agree with you here - I just don't think this is very cut-and-dried, and I think media reports are really pooping the bed here. It's a soapbox more than an illustrative example for either side.

Here are some other accounts from news sources:

"An airport police report said a US Airways manager said three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. A passenger told police the men were praying and making critical comments about the war in Iraq. Some of the men also asked for seat belt extensions even though a flight attendant told police she thought they didn't need them."http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20152.html?cat=1

"The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...522r_page2.htm

Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the airline asked airport police to remove the six men from the Minneapolis to Phoenix flight because their actions were "arousing some concerns" among both passengers and crew.

He said the men had been praying at the gate area but he did not know if they tried to pray once at their seats inside the plane.

He also said some witnesses reported the men were making anti-American statements involving the Iraq war, asked to change seats once inside the cabin, that one requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it and that in general "there was some peculiar behavior."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112100687.html

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by blueangel

An airport police report said a US Airways manager said three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. A passenger told police the men were praying and making critical comments about the war in Iraq. Some of the men also asked for seat belt extensions even though a flight attendant told police she thought they didn't need

Oh noes... they're making critical comments about the Iraq War, were Praying, and some even <gasp> had no checked baggage Well if this is the standard for detecting terrorists I can see a hell of a lot of empty planes domestically.

[shinerbock]

...says the guy from a country which hasn't had terrorist hijackings lately...

[RACooper]

Fair enough (they just blow ours up)....

Anyways then, riddle me this: Why are nations that have been subject to more terrorist attacks and hijackings not over-reacting like this as well?

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Fair enough (they just blow ours up)....

Anyways then, riddle me this: Why are nations that have been subject to more terrorist attacks and hijackings not over-reacting like this as well?

You are assuming our nation is "over-reacting" at airports. I think it is "under-reacting."

Maybe if our airport security was as stringent as Israel's.. 911 might not have happened.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Fair enough (they just blow ours up)....

Anyways then, riddle me this: Why are nations that have been subject to more terrorist attacks and hijackings not over-reacting like this as well?

Is it really over reacting? Last time I checked this was a new thing for the US.....you know, jacking airplanes and then flying them into buildings. Perhaps if we handled things the way they do in Israel and other middle eastern countries, it wouldn't have happened. I'd rather an airport be overly cautious than nonchalantly brushing off a bunch of Muslim men with one way tickets and no luggage who are praying to Allah before boarding a plane. Maybe they are more tolerant up there in ole Canada. I dunno. Also, you're an idiot.

[RACooper]

Hmmm.. still haven't answered the question - why aren't Europeans over-reacting as well; afterall they have been subject to terrorism for alot longer, so with all that experience they don't seem to consider 6 unarmed, praying Imams a threat?

Oh as for the idiot comments - considering it's source I'm not overly concerned.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Is it really over reacting? Last time I checked this was a new thing for the US.....you know, jacking airplanes and then flying them into buildings. Perhaps if we handled things the way they do in Israel and other middle eastern countries, it wouldn't have happened. I'd rather an airport be overly cautious than nonchalantly brushing off a bunch of Muslim men with one way tickets and no luggage who are praying to Allah before boarding a plane. Maybe they are more tolerant up there in ole Canada. I dunno. Also, you're an idiot.

Brother, while turning US airliners into cruise-missiles in the US is a new tactic here, it is not a new tactic.

Thought or idea has been around for a long time. There was a plan to crash a plane into Paris several years ago.