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.

[squirrely girl]

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.

even i get up and walk around - mostly cause i hate to sit still for too long

NOT DIRECTED AT ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR -->

but people will ALWAYS try to justify their paranoia and racism after the fact so that they can feel better about themselves and not look like a total bigot

- m

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

even i get up and walk around - mostly cause i hate to sit still for too long

NOT DIRECTED AT ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR -->

but people will ALWAYS try to justify their paranoia and racism after the fact so that they can feel better about themselves and not look like a total bigot

- m

I agree. I think it's just simpler to say "Yes, we were paranoid and biased but we were scared and our decision was made under those conditions."

[tunatartare]

I wonder what people would think if they ever flew El Al. My flight to Tel Aviv had a bunch of rabbis (including the one from my youth group) flying out there for a convention. In the middle of the flight, they all got up, went to the back of the plane, and started praying (we're talking at least 20 men here).

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by blueangel

and this one from the Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/833103.html

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

http://www.creators.com/opinion_Shel...olumnsname=mch

Mona Charen is a syndicated partisan hack who I doubt has ever been to Minneapolis. If you want a real editorial from the Strib try this one:

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/840610.html

[shinerbock]

Yeah! Lets avoid profiling at any cost! We shouldnt sink to that level just because theres a chance it could save lives. Seriously, you're a moron.

I only hope I have one of you guys on a plane with me at the time its being hijacked, hopefully you'll be able to use your reason on these people, after all, they're probably just misunderstood.

As for the Constitution, I buy any copy I find, I'm obsessed. That being said, I'd gladly piss on it to prevent another 9/11.

[jubilance1922]

Originally Posted by KLPDaisy

I wonder what people would think if they ever flew El Al. My flight to Tel Aviv had a bunch of rabbis (including the one from my youth group) flying out there for a convention. In the middle of the flight, they all got up, went to the back of the plane, and started praying (we're talking at least 20 men here).

No one would probably say anything because we all know that only Muslims kill other people.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yeah! Lets avoid profiling at any cost! We shouldnt sink to that level just because theres a chance it could save lives. Seriously, you're a moron.

You might want to quote someone to indicate who you're talking to - I'm 100% sure you're bright enough to know that I did not take this stance at all, but it's hard to tell.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

As for the Constitution, I buy any copy I find, I'm obsessed. That being said, I'd gladly piss on it to prevent another 9/11.

The problem is that there's no guarantee you'll be preventing - how many times would you do it to prevent a 9/11? Twice? Twenty? Every time?

This epitomizes 'slippery slope' fallacies . . .

[shinerbock]

I hope you mean that the whole "we can't violate the constitution this time, because where will it lead" falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

I was talking to whoever brought up the bigotry, not really directed at you. In reality, much of the terrorism (if not the large majority) which threatens America originates from Muslims. Is it unreasonable to consider every Muslim a terrorist? Of course. Is it unreasonable to take extra precautions when Muslims are acting suspicious, especially at places like airports? Not at all. I feel bad for Muslims in America, I really do. They've gotten a raw deal here. However, if hurting 1000 people's feelings saves one life, sign me up.

Quick, quick, somebody look up a Ben Franklin quote about safety and liberty!

[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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I hope you mean that the whole "we can't violate the constitution this time, because where will it lead" falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

Both fall under the classical definition of the Slippery Slope Fallacy, clearly, as they're inferring a preordained outcome (or are denying an outcome based on an action) - this is entirely the problem with this discussion...

Past that, I don't think we're far off from each other - profiling is successfully used in many parts of the world, and doesn't have to rely simply on demographic information (although it is integrated as well).

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

My point was entirely that relying solely on statements like these are insane.

Of particular note (and why I introduced the topic) is that the other suspicious actions are being widely reported in completely different ways, and that the most extreme sources are from somewhat specious (and not exactly primary) sources - it's almost like a giant game of telephone - and as such, it seems like the anti-American statements are taking a strong front seat . . . this is pretty goofy, to me.

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

OK - I really didn't need additional sources to prove that the journalism sucks here, that was kind of my point. Thanks for the legwork though.

Still no primary source on the "al Quada bomb formation" line?

[AKA_Monet]

I hate to be mean but blueangel, did you see the movie "Soul Plane"

There is just some chit that terrorists won't pull... Like driving down Slauson, Florence and Normandie at midnight in South Central LA... That would be stoopid... And they'd better be WELL-EQUIPPED if they pull some itsh, because it will be an all day affair...

Same holds true way out in Nelson, Georgia un in Tate County... Just places you don't go...

Same holds true in some places in Brooklyn or Bed-stuy...

All the Terrorist see what they pirate off our cable satellites and they think the chit is real...

They can pull another 9-11, what city? Where? A city in Texas where it's folks constitutionally guarenteed right to carry a concealed sawed off or pistol grip pump? Yeah, I'd like to see some terrorist jack anything in South Dallas... Or even Little Mexico... Good luck with that... They can try The Bubble, but the cops pull you over for going over 25 mph on their speed bumps... I should know, I lived there...

And yeah, they'd really terrorize the Bubba's off the I-25... Yepper, I don knows they will...

What's left, San Diego, TX? C'mon. Good Luck...

They did this isht in Minneapolis... Not trying to knock the Twin Cities, but what's there, really? Nuke sites? Where's the symbolism? Minneapolis where Prince was born? Okey...

So, what, LA? Frisco? Portland--maybe? Seattle? They are under a sheet of ice right now. Besides slippin' and sliding, what else? And I'd think neo-cons would be happy to ouster Seattle for being wacko-pinkos... Hayle, the Jonger wants to take out Seattle 'cuz he can't get his iPOD downloads...

At some level we all need to show some nutz and the confront terrorists as citizens of the Untied States...

I dayum sho would like to see some terrorist ride up in my 'hood...

How come they don't roll up in the 'hoods or barrios? That's one thing I haven't figured out...

[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?