240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[AGDee]

I thought I read it in the transcripts between Todd Beamer and the operator he was talking to, when he was describing the men. I also thought it was only one guy.. the one with the "bomb" strapped to him. But, they have taken creative license. I've watched/heard/seen/read so much about that day, the movies get jumbled with the reality.

I do think it's very difficult to ascertain what is "suspicious" behavior in this type of situation. If someone ever feels another passenger is acting suspiciously, it needs to be addressed. I think it probably would have been sufficient to ask him what his shirt meant.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I do think it's very difficult to ascertain what is "suspicious" behavior in this type of situation. If someone ever feels another passenger is acting suspiciously, it needs to be addressed. I think it probably would have been sufficient to ask him what his shirt meant.

I don't know - this seems like couched crap to me (and I don't mean that as a personal attack or anything, it's just illustrative of a mindset that I think is becoming pervasive that I don't like - I'll elaborate...).

It seems like we have to have it one way or another - either this type of 'suspicious' behavior (of which being Muslim and wearing a shirt with Arabic writing is, um, probably not a good example to start, but bear with me for purposes of illustration) should be dealt with in a strong fashion, such as detainment or in-depth questioning, or we have to admit this just isn't suspicious and move on, because the 'middle ground' option of "Please, sir - what does your shirt say?" seems like the least efficacious and most insulting of all possible options.

I don't know- that's just my initial impression. I could probably be convinced otherwise, but initially, it seems like we're saying "I'm leery, but I realize it's wrong to do anything about it, so I'll espouse fear while giving a very neutral suggestion to fix." Doesn't it really have to be all or nothing, so to speak? Am I missing something?

[epchick]

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

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by epchick

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

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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

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?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by epchick

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

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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)

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.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

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

[AlphaDeltaDelta]

Originally Posted by epchick

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

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...

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaDeltaDelta

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.

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?

[DaemonSeid]

Lets keep this in perspective, a young man who wore this...minding his own business





and lets not forget this gem from MIT



The Fake Bomb Shirt

Now remember she PURPOSEFULLY was seeking attention:

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport, said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."


....at the F*CKING AIRPORT????

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3635225&page=1

which bothers you more....?

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Really? Neither were hailed as documentaries, right?

You're right. I thought maybe it was in the description from Todd Beamer.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Lets keep this in perspective, a young man who wore this...minding his own business





and lets not forget this gem from MIT



The Fake Bomb Shirt

Now remember she PURPOSEFULLY was seeking attention:

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport, said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."


....at the F*CKING AIRPORT????

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3635225&page=1

which bothers you more....?

This chick bothers me more. Free spirit my ass. I feel like that's making fun of a national tragedy. Why the HELL would anyone do that? (the part about her walking around barefoot on campus kinda grosses me out too)

All of this kinda reminds me of when a friend of mine decided it'd be ok to wear a tshirt with a huge marijuana leaf on the front (kinda like an Adidas logo shirt) and got pulled over by customs on his way either into or out of Canada. He got pulled over strictly because of the shirt.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

You're right. I thought maybe it was in the description from Todd Beamer.



This chick bothers me more. Free spirit my ass. I feel like that's making fun of a national tragedy. Why the HELL would anyone do that? (the part about her walking around barefoot on campus kinda grosses me out too)

All of this kinda reminds me of when a friend of mine decided it'd be ok to wear a tshirt with a huge marijuana leaf on the front (kinda like an Adidas logo shirt) and got pulled over by customs on his way either into or out of Canada. He got pulled over strictly because of the shirt.

on a sort of a sidenote....

I remember hearing never to become 'a walking advertisement' because of perception...moreso if you have NO CLUE as to what you are wearing or whose face you have on your clothes.

Just the same as people I have seen wearing Che or Malcolm or Tupac or even a football jersey simply because 'it's cool' or 'racy' with no bearing as to what other people are going to do.

I believe that the guy in question had no intentions of causing a riot or pissing people off because he probably had a good idea of the purpose of what his shirt stood for when he bought it.

Now the MIT lady...quite a different tangent...she may be a free spirirt, but a shirt like that is provacative and again she is probably lucky to be in one peice...wearing that TO an airport post 9/11 is a recipe for disaster.

Something else to consider: When watching movies, what do would be terrorists in the movies do?

TRY HARD AS HELL TO BLEND IN.

PM...the overarching lesson in this is as I stated before, we cannot dare ASSume that just because someone looks different or more succinctly, looks similar to those who have done us harm are OUT to cause harm because sometimes the main ones out to do are those who look like us as this was pointed out earlier.

Moreso, some of those fears we have, we must get over and move on lest we let our paranoia get the best of us.


I can't tell you what to do about the elevator...but I can say that you walk a fine line when you profile people.

You know what, if you have never seen it before, rent Crash.

Seriously.

[SWTXBelle]

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot304/

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot304/

Loved this comment here and it speaks volumes:

Not only did security at JFK assume that Jarrar was potentially dangerous because of his shirt, they also assumed that making him remove the shirt would do away with the danger.