• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Six Muslim imams removed from U.S. airliner

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No, I'm not one of those that believes that the US went into Iraq for moral reasons, but I also don't have the illusion that the USA is to blame for the secterian violence in Iraq -- you make it sound as if the US gave some guns to the Shiaa and Sunni and told them to slaughter each other.

I wasn't aware that any bombs were dropped on Iran for them to be scared; but then again, you think that anti-West incitement did not exist piror to the invasion of Iraq.

Not quite sure what you're talking about with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, or perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm.

EDIT: Here, check this out, namely from 2:38 onward.
 
Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Define terrorism. In my definition yopu don't have to kill anyone to be a terrorist, just trying to intimidate them is reason enough to call (or treat) someone a terrorist.

How about "if you are not with us you are against us"? Is this good enough a definition of terrorism according to your above reasoning? It was just intimidation you tried upon europe in your desperate attempt to find allies. You even changed your french fries to freedom fries when the french refused to support you.

Yeah, changing the name of french fries to freeedom fries sure is intimidating. I'll bet we had the French shaking in their boots in fear of their lives. :roll:

I was just being humorous with the fries bit. Truth is the french did not get intimidated in the end. But you did scare the brits to join you. I mean if you look at the whole picture:

1. Fanatic Saudis under osama attack american soil.
2. US links osama to iraqi saddam.
3. US links saddam to WMDs.
4. US gets saddam.
5. Iraq lies in ruins and on the verge of civil war.
6. The whole muslim world (and part of the christian world) is in fear of the US except for the saudis and the terrorists.
7. People in the west see al qaeda on the face of every muslim and are afraid of their shadow.


I would say that your definition of terrorism covers fully the above "logical" sequence that lead from 1 to 7.

And I was being sarcastic back.

You need to back off and take a look at reality. Radical Islam hates us. They don't wear signs that declare themselves as radicals. We have the right to protect ourselves as we see fit and if it appears we are racially profiling some people, then so be it. I would rather put up with some racial profiling then invade countries and fight stupid wars.

Did we "discriminate" against the inmans? Probably, but they will get over it and to a certain degree, they brought in on themselves so they get no sympathy from me.

I have to ask myself how much more crap the west will take before "radical christians" groups spriong up and start forming KKK like groups to harrass muslims? If things keep going they way they are now, I'd guess less then 10 years.

The motto for the 21st century will go something like this, "Be afraid, be very afraid".
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Define terrorism. In my definition yopu don't have to kill anyone to be a terrorist, just trying to intimidate them is reason enough to call (or treat) someone a terrorist.

How about "if you are not with us you are against us"? Is this good enough a definition of terrorism according to your above reasoning? It was just intimidation you tried upon europe in your desperate attempt to find allies. You even changed your french fries to freedom fries when the french refused to support you.

Yeah, changing the name of french fries to freeedom fries sure is intimidating. I'll bet we had the French shaking in their boots in fear of their lives. :roll:

I was just being humorous with the fries bit. Truth is the french did not get intimidated in the end. But you did scare the brits to join you. I mean if you look at the whole picture:

1. Fanatic Saudis under osama attack american soil.
2. US links osama to iraqi saddam.
3. US links saddam to WMDs.
4. US gets saddam.
5. Iraq lies in ruins and on the verge of civil war.
6. The whole muslim world (and part of the christian world) is in fear of the US except for the saudis and the terrorists.
7. People in the west see al qaeda on the face of every muslim and are afraid of their shadow.


I would say that your definition of terrorism covers fully the above "logical" sequence that lead from 1 to 7.

And I was being sarcastic back.

You need to back off and take a look at reality. Radical Islam hates us. They don't wear signs that declare themselves as radicals. We have the right to protect ourselves as we see fit and if it appears we are racially profiling some people, then so be it. I would rather put up with some racial profiling then invade countries and fight stupid wars.

Did we "discriminate" against the inmans? Probably, but they will get over it and to a certain degree, they brought in on themselves so they get no sympathy from me.

I have to ask myself how much more crap the west will take before "radical christians" groups spriong up and start forming KKK like groups to harrass muslims? If things keep going they way they are now, I'd guess less then 10 years.

The motto for the 21st century will go something like this, "Be afraid, be very afraid".

i share your fears
 
Originally posted by: dna
No, I'm not one of those that believes that the US went into Iraq for moral reasons, but I also don't have the illusion that the USA is to blame for the secterian violence in Iraq -- you make it sound as if the US gave some guns to the Shiaa and Sunni and told them to slaughter each other.

I wasn't aware that any bombs were dropped on Iran for them to be scared; but then again, you think that anti-West incitement did not exist piror to the invasion of Iraq.

Not quite sure what you're talking about with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, or perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm.

EDIT: Here, check this out, namely from 2:38 onward.

FOX news? nice and objective.

anyway, i never denied the violence of the terrorists. I object to the equalisation of terrorism and the muslim world. As for the video, it reminded me of bushes campaign that got him elected twice.
 
Originally posted by: alejandroAT
FOX news? nice and objective.

anyway, i never denied the violence of the terrorists. I object to the equalisation of terrorism and the muslim world. As for the video, it reminded me of bushes campaign that got him elected twice.

In case you haven't noticed, there were segments there with video from Lebanon, Iran, and other -- original stuff that is broadcasted in the Middle East.

Were you trying to avoid the issue by mentioning Fox news?

(anyway, the video on the whole is not a FOX news production)
 
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Rainsford
not only that, but they don't seem to quote ANYONE who was directly involved by name, not exactly good journalism.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there are plenty of articles that reveal the names of the people they quote; some people just don't want to be named.
Of course there are people who want to remain anonymous, but any journalist with half a brain will tell you that relying ENTIRELY on those people for the facts of your story makes it pretty weak. I imagine eyewitnesses might want to remain anonymous, but they couldn't find ANY official willing to put his or her name to the facts? I find that difficult to believe...

Anyway, if those guys intentionally sat in other seats, then that's already an indication that they were trying to provoke some kind of reaction, with that reaction leading to a media blitz regarding Islamophobia, etc, etc....

I don't see how you can make that judgment, given the fact that there is very little solid information about what they did or did not do on the plane. Hell, for all we know they switched seats with people who WANTED to switch seats, I do that all the time when I fly and I'm not trying to provoke any kind of reaction. You are awfully quick to jump to conclusions based on virtually no information, why is that?
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: spidey07
I wonder if you guys are following the now public release of statements from police reports and eye witness accounts. There was the perfect kind of profiling going on here - stoping this kind of activity.

This was a test run to see what they could get away with and nothing more. Glad they were stopped.

Yep, sounds like they were on a fishing trip to me too. I have to ask myself how much other crap they would have tried if they had been allowed to stay on the plane.

Oh yeah, clearly they were terrorist masterminds. Because obviously the best way to covertly do a "test run" is to start out by loudly pray to Allah in the middle of a crowded terminal. :roll:

Now as for the rest of the "suspicious activity", I find it interesting that it's been a little while since this happened and only now is this extra "evidence" coming out...given the impact, it seems like someone would have mentioned it earlier. Am I the only one who finds it a LITTLE suspicious that the initial reports focused only on their prayer (the least suspicious of their alleged activities), but all of a sudden they were "arranging themselves in the same pattern as the 9/11 terrorists"? Hell, how do we even KNOW how the 9/11 terrorists were sitting in the plane? It's not like there were a lot of people around after the attack to interview.

Now if they WERE doing the things they were supposedly doing, I'd say that certainly warrants a closer look. But my bullshit detector is going nuts here, the story has suddenly changed to be WAY more supportive of the actions taken by the security officials and turned the whole situation from people being uneasy with overtly religious Muslims to this being some sort of terrorist test run. This whole thing sounds like a load of crap to me, partially because of the circumstances of the changing story, but also because the official explanation at this point makes NO sense. There is little record of Muslim religious leaders directly engaging in terrorism, and if these guys WERE terrorists, they were the most incompetent terrorists in the universe...it sounds way more like a situation out of a Chuck Norris movie than real life.

Define terrorism. In my definition yopu don't have to kill anyone to be a terrorist, just trying to intimidate them is reason enough to call (or treat) someone a terrorist.

Do you really believe that if they had been allowed to fly on that plane they would have not caused further trouble? You don't have to be violent to be a troublemaker, ask Ghandi.

I don't have enough information to make any kind of judgment about what they were or weren't doing or might have done, the information available so far makes very little sense and is setting off those oh so useful warning bells in my head that tell me when someone is full of crap. Given the extremely anti-Islamic attitude in the United States lately, and given the extremely jumpy attitude of anyone on an airplane, I tend to "believe" that this is an overreaction. Now obviously if more information comes out I'll have to re-evaluate that position, but for the moment I think this story has been blown WAY out of proportion. Next we'll be hearing that they had explosives strapped to their bodies and one of them was Osama bin Laden...this story just has that feel to it.

I see where your coming from, I guess I just disagree. They can jerk a person off the plane for refusing to put out their cigarette, I see nothing wrong with kicking these inmans off the plane if even half of what has been reported is true.

I wasn't there either so I have to do my best to sift through the reports and try to glean the truth, but the pilot was on scene and he made the call. He decided to be safe rather then sorry. Maybe he was wrong but it was his call to make. He was there on the spot and I have a hard time believeing that he would risk a lawsuit against the airline and possibly even his own job unless he had sufficient reason.

I didn't say that kicking them off was inconsistent with the current attitudes about airline security. In fact, I AGREE that even the initial reports seem to justify pulling them off the plane given the context of airport security today. I disagree with how paranoid air travelers and those involved in the system have become, but kicking Muslims off for praying loudly is CERTAINLY believable, I think most people would think that was "sufficient reason". Which is all the more reason for me to think that this new story is a bunch of bullshit. The first story made sense, it just didn't look too good in retrospect for the people involved. The new story makes very little sense, if the police even thought for a second that these imams were participating in a "dry run" terrorist attack, they would not have been released so quickly.

Let's face it, "airport security" and "Islamophobia" are not mutually exclusive things...the major component of airport security is making people feel safe. Their safety is largely an illusion, but totally preventing attacks would be too expensive and restrictive given the importance of our air transportation system. So really, given what the system is supposed to accomplish, throwing off folks because they looked at the pilot wrong, or were praying to Allah, or whatever is exactly what I expect from the system. I don't agree with it, but that's what people by and large WANT from their airport security.
 
Raisnford,

You mentioned airport security. Have you flown internationally much?

If these muslim yahoos pulled even 10% of that crap they pulled they wouldn't even be let on the plane. let's keep this in mind please.

There outrageious behavior was either:

1) A dry run to see what they could get away with and then diseminate this info to their followers/terror cells.
2) An attempt to use America's PC bullcrap mentatlity to use it against us in an attempt further test the waters.

I find it funny how "jumping to conclusions" is OK when it comes to PC bullcrap, but not ok in the reverse.

-edit-
I have a lot of respect for you so sorry if I came across harshly.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course there are people who want to remain anonymous, but any journalist with half a brain will tell you that relying ENTIRELY on those people for the facts of your story makes it pretty weak. I imagine eyewitnesses might want to remain anonymous, but they couldn't find ANY official willing to put his or her name to the facts? I find that difficult to believe...

Damn, can't believe I omitted that "don't" in the orignal comment (now edited).
Anyway, I don't understand what you're getting at -- if you wish to accuse the writer of making up witnesses, then say so; otherwise, I don't see what's the big deal with people wishing to remain annonymous, especially with the PC attitude going around nowadays.

I don't see how you can make that judgment, given the fact that there is very little solid information about what they did or did not do on the plane.

The article implies that they all switched seats, and, if that's not enough, two of them falsely claimed they had their ticket upgraded. To top it off, they decided to talk about Bin Laden, Bush, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq on a plane, of all places. Seems like they were trying to provoke something all right....
 
The group disputes some of the details in the report:

But Shahin, a lawyer, disputes many of these details. He says everyone in the group had round-trip tickets that he had booked?and that he has the documentation to prove it. The reason he was at the front of the flight was because he was upgraded to first class because he?s a frequent flyer on the airline. And the reason he asked for a seatbelt extension? Shahin says his 290-pound frame should make that obvious. As for the anti-American remarks, Shahin says the group was talking about the conference, which, ironically, was focused on building bridges to the non-Muslim community. And to avoid this very type of incident, Shahin says he?d already notified both the F.B.I. and local Minneapolis police department of the NAIF conference, as a precaution. ?What they claim [in the police report] is just not true," he says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15856333/site/newsweek/
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Raisnford,

You mentioned airport security. Have you flown internationally much?

If these muslim yahoos pulled even 10% of that crap they pulled they wouldn't even be let on the plane. let's keep this in mind please.

There outrageious behavior was either:

1) A dry run to see what they could get away with and then diseminate this info to their followers/terror cells.
2) An attempt to use America's PC bullcrap mentatlity to use it against us in an attempt further test the waters.

I find it funny how "jumping to conclusions" is OK when it comes to PC bullcrap, but not ok in the reverse.

-edit-
I have a lot of respect for you so sorry if I came across harshly.

I fly internationally quite often (and domestically all the time), and you're right, when it comes to airport security, you don't have to do much at all for people to act like you are some sort of terrorist. I hardly ever get searched going through security, but I've been pulled aside three times for doing something even slightly "off". The first time I was tired and when I was going through security and they "suggested" I take my shoes off, I decided to be a smart ass and asked them to just tell me if I needed to or not. The second time I was bored waiting in line and, instead of simply shuffling ahead like everyone else, I was watching what all the airport security folks were doing, perhaps a little too intently, and they clearly noticed. The third time I forgot to take my laptop out of my bag when I put it through the metal detector.

I tend to think airport security is a lot of security theater, but you're right, it takes hardly anything at all to set people off...I'm not really surprised that the Muslims were under suspicion here. I don't AGREE with the reasons for it, but it certainly fits with my extensive experience with airport security since 9/11. Even if the more unbelievably things they were allegedly doing aren't true, the stuff that seems more in the realm of possibility seems like it would have been "suspicious" in the context of modern airport security.

However, that is NOT the same thing as taking reasonable security precautions. Given the relatively low bar for "suspicious activity", I'm not sure what they were doing was outrageous or any sort of "test" for future terrorist activity. Perhaps it was poorly thought out, and it may have been a little more than was necessary due to some sort of frustration with the whole process...but I'm not really convinced there was some sinister motive here...any more than there was when I decided to be a smart-ass to the TSA folks or was eyeballing their security.

I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions so much as I'm respecting the idea of innocent until proven guilty, or even playing devil's advocate. A story comes out about six imams being removed from an airliner for some sort of suspicious activity, possibly simply praying too loudly, perhaps changing seats, or maybe asking for seatbelt extensions. The information about just what they were doing does not seem at all clear at the moment, but that hasn't stopped a lot of people from assuming that not only was their removal justified, but that there were probably terrorists. I'm just pointing out that MAYBE it's a little soon to be judging the imams so harshly, because even given the recent problems with terrorism, I don't think a Muslim should be treated as a terrorist unless he's able to prove otherwise.

And don't worry about the respect thing...this is just "vigorous disagreement", it's actually pretty easy to tell the difference 😀
 
Originally posted by: 4X4er
The group disputes some of the details in the report:

But Shahin, a lawyer, disputes many of these details. He says everyone in the group had round-trip tickets that he had booked?and that he has the documentation to prove it. The reason he was at the front of the flight was because he was upgraded to first class because he?s a frequent flyer on the airline. And the reason he asked for a seatbelt extension? Shahin says his 290-pound frame should make that obvious. As for the anti-American remarks, Shahin says the group was talking about the conference, which, ironically, was focused on building bridges to the non-Muslim community. And to avoid this very type of incident, Shahin says he?d already notified both the F.B.I. and local Minneapolis police department of the NAIF conference, as a precaution. ?What they claim [in the police report] is just not true," he says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15856333/site/newsweek/

Hmm...

Maybe it's just me, but their explanation of the whole situation sounds a LOT more reasonable than the story as presented so far. Obviously it will be some time before we find out what exactly went on (if we ever do), but I usually have a pretty reliable BS detector, and Shahin's story is setting off a lot fewer warning bells than that Washington Times piece. I also tend to disbelieve "eyewitness" reports, ask any police officer or intelligence person, eyewitnesses are among the least reliable means of getting to the bottom of things. Anyone remember that story a while ago with the fake air marshal who "detained" a passenger for reaching into a backpack (or whatever he did) and all the people on the plane bought into it?
 
I checked out the article and the first thing I notice is the picture of Shahin. He doesn't look to me like he needs a seat belt extension, not even close. Where are the pictures/statments of the rest?

The next thing I notice is that they are all going to a North American Inmans Federation conference on American/Muslim relations but the book their seats seperatly. It seems to me that they would want to stay together so they can talk about things during the flight? Why split up? They seem to want people to think that will create less problems when the fact is that it will enlarge their profile even more.

And of course they have talked to their lawyers, LOL. I think they were looking to make trouble from the get go and they are hiding behind thieri accusations of racial profiling and religious persecution. They knew full well what reaction ther actions would cause.

This whole incident is a [prime example of why I hate organized religion, any organized religion. Their primary goal is to brainwash people into believing that their way is the only way to heaven. In my book you have to be retarded to believe in a God like that. Is there a good reason that they can't pray in silence just once in the interest of good relations or are they just more religious nuts who have to make a scene to show that they are holier then thou?

The fact remains that it is Middle Easterns are the ones who are trying to terrorize this country and Muslims need to be sensitive to that FACT. I don't hate Muslims, I just think they need to learn a little tolerance in the interest of peace, instead it seems they go out of their way to cause incidents like this.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I checked out the article and the first thing I notice is the picture of Shahin. He doesn't look to me like he needs a seat belt extension, not even close. Where are the pictures/statments of the rest?
Oh because you saw ONE picture of him -you automatically decide what he does or doesn't need. I don't know how big a person has to be, and ?I surely don't need a seatbelt extension - but 290 lbs is pretty big, and for whatever reason for his body whether it is more comfortable...a seat belt extender is what he needs.

The next thing I notice is that they are all going to a North American Inmans Federation conference on American/Muslim relations but the book their seats seperatly. It seems to me that they would want to stay together so they can talk about things during the flight? Why split up? They seem to want people to think that will create less problems when the fact is that it will enlarge their profile even more.

Its all speculation. I would say on the same note that they want to split up so that they don't draw attention to themselves - 6 imams (or rather - to others it will bge 6 middle eastern looking folk) will surely attract attention...whereas if they are dispersed it hopefully wouldn't be a problem.
Besides, they would only speak in English . If they start TALKING about a lot of Muslim issues, I'm sure it would have freaked people out as they would be listening to anything that can be construed as "TERRARR"

And of course they have talked to their lawyers, LOL. I think they were looking to make trouble from the get go and they are hiding behind thieri accusations of racial profiling and religious persecution. They knew full well what reaction ther actions would cause.
In a situation like this it is only smart. Any mistake that they would say or do would most likely be taken advantage of by people to justify their detention - and the lengths of which people have gone to do that here on AT should be proof enough of it.


This whole incident is a [prime example of why I hate organized religion, any organized religion. Their primary goal is to brainwash people into believing that their way is the only way to heaven. In my book you have to be retarded to believe in a God like that. Is there a good reason that they can't pray in silence just once in the interest of good relations or are they just more religious nuts who have to make a scene to show that thy are holier then thou?
The sad part is you think they are praying to pull a "holier than thou" issue. If they wanted to do that, I would assume they would get everyone to pray together together so that they have as many people as possible which WOULD attract more attention.
When a muslim prays -there are actions which must be completed. I don't care if 10 people are watching me, or I'm alone (95% of the situation) - I will still preform these actions. I guarantee to you that they always pray like that - whether they are with others, or are alone.

The fact remains that it is Middle Easterns are the ones who are trying to terrorize this country and Muslims need to be sensitive to that FACT. I don't hate Muslims, I just think they need to learn a little tolerance in the interest of peace, instead it seems they go out of their way to cause incidents like this.

Seems they tried their best - to the point of notifying the FBI about the fact that a congregation was going to occur - given the circumstances, but people still had to make a fuss.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I checked out the article and the first thing I notice is the picture of Shahin. He doesn't look to me like he needs a seat belt extension, not even close. Where are the pictures/statments of the rest?
You ever sit in first class? The seats are wider, but the belts are the same size (at least on most airlines), it seems very possible that a man his size could need an extension in first class.
The next thing I notice is that they are all going to a North American Inmans Federation conference on American/Muslim relations but the book their seats seperatly. It seems to me that they would want to stay together so they can talk about things during the flight? Why split up? They seem to want people to think that will create less problems when the fact is that it will enlarge their profile even more.
Right...a group of several Muslims sitting together talking on an airplane, nobody would have objected to THAT. Overall that seems more "suspicious" than traveling in a group, the only problem here was when people realized they were all together...and frankly I think that was added afterwards because it made a better story.
And of course they have talked to their lawyers, LOL. I think they were looking to make trouble from the get go and they are hiding behind thieri accusations of racial profiling and religious persecution. They knew full well what reaction ther actions would cause.
Gee, I wonder why a group of Muslims being harassed by an airline would talk to their lawyers :roll:
This whole incident is a [prime example of why I hate organized religion, any organized religion. Their primary goal is to brainwash people into believing that their way is the only way to heaven. In my book you have to be retarded to believe in a God like that. Is there a good reason that they can't pray in silence just once in the interest of good relations or are they just more religious nuts who have to make a scene to show that they are holier then thou?

The fact remains that it is Middle Easterns are the ones who are trying to terrorize this country and Muslims need to be sensitive to that FACT. I don't hate Muslims, I just think they need to learn a little tolerance in the interest of peace, instead it seems they go out of their way to cause incidents like this.

Tolerance? I think that only works if it goes both ways. Obviously EVERYONE needs to watch what they do and say when airport security is involved. I'm not saying that's right, I think it's damn stupid, but that's the new reality (largely because we've made it that way), but I don't think Muslims should have some special obligation to tiptoe around because some jackass who watches too much 24 thinks every Muslim on the planet is a likely terrorist.
 
I was going to come in here bashing the 6 muslims after reading this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233958,00.html

Then I saw their version of the story and I am like wtf? Reading that article it makes them seem like a bunch of con-artist trying to get money from the airline.

Seems like the Muslims are in the right if they have the documents to prove their case. 290 pounds is huge. The guy has a fat gut, look at him. When he sits down his fat gut sticks out even more. The article said "thin". If 290 is thin then damn.

Suck it up apologize and move on and stop writting BS articles.
 
Rainsford:

"I tend to think airport security is a lot of security theater, but you're right, it takes hardly anything at all to set people off."

At Paris CDG airport, the security lady asked me to remove my mp3 in-ear earbuds and I replied I could hear her just fine with them on (they were the type that you have to squeeze between your fingers to compress them and insert in your ear and I didn't want to go through the process again). I was immediately directed to the 3rd degree security check.

My advice is: shut your mouth, don't stick out and do what you're told (unless they stick a cattle prod up your behind). I've never been treated badly when I do so, even when selected for 3rd degree security check (they've been very apologetic about it most of the time). It's better for you and you're also being considerate to fellow-travellers by not wasting their time.
 
Aimster:

"Seems like the Muslims are in the right if they have the documents to prove their case. 290 pounds is huge. The guy has a fat gut, look at him. When he sits down his fat gut sticks out even more. The article said "thin". If 290 is thin then damn.

Suck it up apologize and move on and stop writting BS articles."

After reading the police report, it is obvious that it was their behavior rather than arab stereotypes that precipitated the case, however innocent they are. What the imams need is schooling on how to use an airport. Perhaps a knowledgable muslim will come forward and give them that lesson rather than portray this as a discrimination thing.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: athithi
Originally posted by: conjur
I admit I'd be concerned, too. And if it's a requirement to pray at various times of the day, why didn't they ALL pray? Why only 3 of the 6?

I'm against profiling but these guys have to understand that actions such as that *will* cause nervousness among Americans, esp. on a freakin' plane!

I find it ironic that these Imams are complaining about Americans not knowing enough about Muslims/Islam while being totally oblivious to how their actions can seem strange and disconcerting to Americans, especially after 9/11. I have been profiled at airports and I hated it too. But I wasn't doing anything weird. For the most part, I don't even speak in my native tongue at public places when I am within earshot of others. I believe that is considered impolite in western culture and if I don't like it, I shouldn't have traveled all the way across the world to live in a western society. There's enough prejudice going around without these people having to conjure up imaginary ones. Stop acting weird and perhaps you won't be kicked out of the airplane the next time.
They have their fellow Muslims to thank for our paranoia.

Nope, you have your arrogance and ignorance to blame.
 
Originally posted by: tvarad
Aimster:

"Seems like the Muslims are in the right if they have the documents to prove their case. 290 pounds is huge. The guy has a fat gut, look at him. When he sits down his fat gut sticks out even more. The article said "thin". If 290 is thin then damn.

Suck it up apologize and move on and stop writting BS articles."

After reading the police report, it is obvious that it was their behavior rather than arab stereotypes that precipitated the case, however innocent they are. What the imams need is schooling on how to use an airport. Perhaps a knowledgable muslim will come forward and give them that lesson rather than portray this as a discrimination thing.

What Americans need schooling on is how to respect other people and other religions. Just becuase you have the guns and the money does not make you right.
 
ROFL, after reading the police report, any american that has a one way ticket, mentions Bush, criticises Iran needs to be deported. These stupid Americans need to learn logic.
 
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Nope, you have your arrogance and ignorance to blame.

Considering the amount of recent violence, suicide bombings, and genocide, from Asia to the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and North and South America -- all done in the name of Islam -- your assertion doesn't hold.
 
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Nope, you have your arrogance and ignorance to blame.

Considering the amount of recent violence, suicide bombings, and genocide, from Asia to the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and North and South America -- all done in the name of Islam -- your assertion doesn't hold.
We may need to look at this from Islam's perspective and those that are semi-brainwashed by it..

If we (not faithful) are ignorant of their religion and thereby not obeying/respecting it; to some it may seem arrogant.

If everyone honored Islam, there would be no need for violence and disrespect.

Yes, there may be some "minor" disagreements/squabbles within the family; however, it is nothing that needs to be concerned about.

 
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15824096/

Why dosen't this surprise me?

Islam

"Allahu Akbar" was just the opening act. After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats but dispersed to seats in the first row of first class, in the midcabin exit rows and in the rear--the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams. The head of the group, seated closest to the cockpit, and two others asked for a seatbelt extension, kept on board for obese people. A heavy metal buckle at the end of a long strap, it can easily be used as a lethal weapon. The three men rolled them up and placed them on the floor under their seats. And lest this entire incident be written off as simple cultural ignorance, a frightened Arabic-speaking passenger pulled aside a crew member and translated the imams' suspicious conversations, which included angry denunciations of Americans, furious grumblings about U.S. foreign policy, Osama Bin Laden and "killing Saddam."


These imams claimed that they were humiliated in a very disrepectful way. But then in an interview with the washington times, Mr. Shahin, one of the imams said that no such thing happened. The imams lied. Of course, the msm did not cover this.

More info about the staged incident:
Tale Of Fibbing Imams

The police report detailing the US Airways flap gives us serious pause. The imams acted more like provocateurs than victims. At the gate before boarding, they angrily cursed the U.S. Then they bowed to Mecca and prayed "very loud," chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah," according to the gate agent and another witness.





 
Back
Top