Imams vs. US Airways

[HA25]

Bottom line here: All of the terrorists invoved in 9/11 were muslim. Most, if not all, of the peolpe involved in the attempts to bring liquid explosives aboard airplanes in London were MUSLIM! These are the people trying to kill us. They should be profiled. Political correctness is getting in the way of our nations security.

I'm glad you stressed "Muslim" as I'm sick of ill-educated people saying "Arabs" ... Arabs are indeed majority Muslim, but there are millions of them (especially here in the US) that are Christian, and even some Jew.

OTOH, there are Asian, black, Pakistani (the liquid threat), and even Caucasian Muslims.

 

[Dizel8]

While tolerance for others is a must, it is a two way street and in case of security, PC has gotten the better of us.

Using the race card, while convenient, is also wrong. If the Imans were preaching like MLK that would be one thing, but sadly they are inciting violence by spouting rhetoric like Farrakhan.

Civilized countries, such as England has seen the need to arrest or expel hatepreachers. Holland saw a muslim kill an innocent artist, Denmark saw their embassy burned and Imans called for a jihad against that nation because of a cartoon. Is that the face of a civilized, peaceful religion?

Yes, the christians had the crusades, but the ottoman empire wasn't the nicest either, of course mind you, this was back in the dark ages. The difference is that we are no longer in the dark ages, yet some people apparently has not noticed this.

The behaviour that we condone in the US, while the vast majority innocent is also a far cry from what would be allowed in a muslim country. Want to bring in a magazine such as FHM into Saudi, have your woman in a bikini or drink a beer, well not going to happen and while we westerners don't understand it, we generally abide by the rules and understand that such is the lay of the land. The muslims then, must also understand, that while we are much more tolerant, that certain things, while allowed, can subject one to closer scrutiny. They need to abide by common sense and common sense dictates, that a group of muslims praying in a terminal or on an airplane can be cause for concern.

 

[HA25]

Yes, the christians had the crusades

not to hi-jack, but that was only a response to the attacks on Christendom by Islam, and the whole thing has a bad reputation more due to revisionist liberal (anti-Catholic) professors than anything else. In the end, Islam has an extreme wing (as mentioned by Benedict) that is unreasonable and must be put down, either by force or by political pressure. But the WORSE thing we can do is lump all Muslims into a group, as it would equal 1,000,000,000 plus strong and would lead to a major world conflict that could lead to a WWIII.

 

[TWA Dude]

And erring on the safe side is preferable to having my head severed from my shoulders because I was too much of a weak-d!ck to stand up and say enough is enough...

The problem with this logic is that it violates US law. It is not lawful to look at a passengers and decide you don't like them and kick them off. There needs to be a reason and that reason needs to be valid. To say "err on the safe side" is meaningless because the the risk is not being calculated intelligently.

On the one hand you tell us exactly why you as an American Jew vote a straight Democratic ticket, and on that same hand you seem to have a disconnect with the fact that these same muslims you so honorably defend, teach their children that you are descended from pigs and apes... These guys hate your guts and you smugly wag your finger when someone calls them on their bull crap...

I'm talking about the law and you're talking about emotions. Whether I agree with the beliefs of imams or not is irrelevant. What irks me about your logic is that you something think that your beliefs supercede US law, ie, because you believe Muslims are bad people they deserve to be kicked off airplanes. You feed into their intolerance with your own.

Political correctness is going to lead this nation down a road we don't want to travel...

That's right, blame PC and that settles it. So if you were king all Muslims would be banned from America's skies? Who else don't you like?

 

[TWA Dude]

not to hi-jack, but that was only a response to the attacks on Christendom by Islam, and the whole thing has a bad reputation more due to revisionist liberal (anti-Catholic) professors than anything else.

Don't forget that the Crusaders also murdered as many Jews (and surely any other religions/ethnicities they ran into) as they could. I think the bad reputation is well-deserved.

 

[stonewall]

I think the bad reputation is well-deserved.

I think Islam's bad reputation across the western world right now is well-deserved. Does that make me an islamophobe? A bigot?

Further, the imams in question were not eyeballed upon boarding and booted off. There were actions involved, not just appearance.

 

[TWA Dude]

I think Islam's bad reputation across the western world right now is well-deserved. Does that make me an islamophobe? A bigot?

I was talking about the Crusades.

Further, the imams in question were not eyeballed upon boarding and booted off. There were actions involved, not just appearance.

Were there illegal actions involved? Were there legitimately suspicious actions involved or just ignorance? As you well know a typically ignorant Amercian public often confuses orthodox Jews and Sikhs with Muslims. It's the job of astute airline and airport employees to dispell that confusion.

 

[rtmcfi]

http://www.bigairport.com/quizmarch2005.htm

This page about sums it up for me.......

 

[Big Beer Belly]

While tolerance for others is a must, it is a two way street and in case of security, PC has gotten the better of us.

Using the race card, while convenient, is also wrong. If the Imans were preaching like MLK that would be one thing, but sadly they are inciting violence by spouting rhetoric like Farrakhan.

Civilized countries, such as England has seen the need to arrest or expel hatepreachers. Holland saw a muslim kill an innocent artist, Denmark saw their embassy burned and Imans called for a jihad against that nation because of a cartoon. Is that the face of a civilized, peaceful religion?

Yes, the christians had the crusades, but the ottoman empire wasn't the nicest either, of course mind you, this was back in the dark ages. The difference is that we are no longer in the dark ages, yet some people apparently has not noticed this.

The behaviour that we condone in the US, while the vast majority innocent is also a far cry from what would be allowed in a muslim country. Want to bring in a magazine such as FHM into Saudi, have your woman in a bikini or drink a beer, well not going to happen and while we westerners don't understand it, we generally abide by the rules and understand that such is the lay of the land. The muslims then, must also understand, that while we are much more tolerant, that certain things, while allowed, can subject one to closer scrutiny. They need to abide by common sense and common sense dictates, that a group of muslims praying in a terminal or on an airplane can be cause for concern.

Well said Dizel!

I'll condense it down to: "Boot the whack jobs off the plane every day and twice on Saturday!" Some fruitcake stands up and starts moaning, praying, can't stand up straight, whatever ... yer outa here Ahnad! :uzi:

BBB

 

[atrdriver]

I was talking about the Crusades.Were there illegal actions involved?

On 9/11 there were no illegal acts involved until the first person was killed. Maybe if someone had seen some of those 19 guys acting in a suspicious was that could have been prevented.

 

[stonewall]

I was talking about the Crusades.

I know. I was actually surprised you made a moral judgement about a religion. Usually when others on this board do the same, you roll in with "you're an ill-informed bigot" type commentary. I was merely highlighting that I also have an opinion about a religion.

Were there illegal actions involved? Were there legitimately suspicious actions involved or just ignorance?

At the time, illegal actions were irrelevant. Based on the emerging facts (all yet to be told, I'm sure), it's reasonable to think there was suspicious, or at least unusual, behavior. The Captain was well within his right to have them removed from the airplane.

As you well know a typically ignorant Amercian public often confuses orthodox Jews and Sikhs with Muslims.

Thankfully we have citizens like you among the unwashed masses to keep them straight.

It's the job of astute airline and airport employees to dispell that confusion

Actually, I don't think that's in the job description.

 

[TWA Dude]

On 9/11 there were no illegal acts involved until the first person was killed. Maybe if someone had seen some of those 19 guys acting in a suspicious was that could have been prevented.

I'm no expert but I know that planning to commit some crimes is a crime. The 9/11 terrorists were indeed criminals beforehand. What does this have to do with devout Muslims praying in an airport?

 

[TWA Dude]

I was actually surprised you made a moral judgement about a religion.

Where exactly did I do that?

At the time, illegal actions were irrelevant. Based on the emerging facts (all yet to be told, I'm sure), it's reasonable to think there was suspicious, or at least unusual, behavior.

"Suspicion" is a legal term. It remains to be seen if their behavior was indeed suspicious.

The Captain was well within his right to have them removed from the airplane.

The Captain has that right but he must also have a valid reason.

Thankfully we have citizens like you among the unwashed masses to keep them straight.

Nice of you to defend ignorance.

Actually, I don't think that's in the job description.

I believe it is. Remember how after 9/11 there were numerous instances of "suspicious"-looking people being booted off flights? The airlines had to settle several courts cases because of that. They responded by training us that we need to have valid concerns before booting people off. I needed no such training but others did. Sounds like you do too.

 

[atrdriver]

I'm no expert but I know that planning to commit some crimes is a crime. The 9/11 terrorists were indeed criminals beforehand. What does this have to do with devout Muslims praying in an airport?

OK, try to look at it this way. If you tried to take your playboy into their country, or drink beer, or any one of hundreds of other things that we take for granted here in the good old US, you would be arrested. They have ZERO tolerance for YOUR way of life. That being the case, when you go to their country you watch what you do, and conform to their expectations so as not to cause problems. But we have become SOOOOO PC that we are expected to allow anyone to do anything that they like in our country. There is something wrong with that. And I have news for you, flying is NOT a right, for ANYONE. If you look at the little bitty print on your tickets or contract of carriage you will find that a person can be denied boarding at teh discression of the airline. If you were to get drunk before a flight you would be denied boarding, even though you might very well sleep the entire flight, and there is nothing that you could do about it.

I will say again, had this been my flight, they would NOT have gone with us on that leg. And don't call me a bigot, several of my very good friends are muslims. But, they are Americans first, and Muslims second, and they know that there are times that they are expected to act in certain ways, and they do. I don't care what religion you are, what race you are, for what whatever else you are. If you do something that is suspicious to me you are going to get extra scrutiny.

 

[TWA Dude]

If you tried to take your playboy into their country, or drink beer, or any one of hundreds of other things that we take for granted here in the good old US, you would be arrested.

Yes, I'm aware that freedom is scarce in most Muslim countries. I'm talking about this country and I don't see the relevance.

And I have news for you, flying is NOT a right, for ANYONE. If you look at the little bitty print on your tickets or contract of carriage you will find that a person can be denied boarding at teh discression of the airline. If you were to get drunk before a flight you would be denied boarding, even though you might very well sleep the entire flight, and there is nothing that you could do about it.

There's a law against boarding intoxicated pax but there's no law against devout Muslims.

If you do something that is suspicious to me you are going to get extra scrutiny.

As I've written over and over you need to have a valid reason for your suspicions. The ultimate judge of that is our courts.

 

[VABB]

The problem with this logic is that it violates US law. It is not lawful to look at a passengers and decide you don't like them and kick them off. There needs to be a reason and that reason needs to be valid.

I think it went a lot deeper than just "not liking" the passengers in question. Several of the passengers felt uncomfortable too.

 

[VABB]

Don't forget that the Crusaders also murdered as many Jews (and surely any other religions/ethnicities they ran into) as they could. I think the bad reputation is well-deserved.

Ah yes, the Crusades. Didn't those happen about 1500 years ago?? Sure, let's compare a 1500 year old event to what we see on the six-o'clock news during the present. Idiot.

 

[atrdriver]

The ultimate judge of that is our courts.

No, the ultimate judge of that is the PIC. Part 91 states very clearly that the PIC is responsible for ALL aspects of the flight, including safety. That is something that has never been challenged in court, as the airlines have always folded and settled with the "victims."

 

[svcta]

The problem with this logic is that it violates US law. It is not lawful to look at a passengers and decide you don't like them and kick them off. There needs to be a reason and that reason needs to be valid. To say "err on the safe side" is meaningless because the the risk is not being calculated intelligently.I'm talking about the law and you're talking about emotions.

The problem with this logic is that since the captain is not a law-making entity, an officer of the law, or trying to enforce a law in any way he has no real obligation to exercise anything more than judgement. I will also contend that is important that we all continue to do just that. One aiplane saved is worth at least thousands of offended liberals and Muslims.

Gut reaction is all any of us need as a crewmember at the end of the day. Granted it's not a power to be abused(and it was not in this case), but WE have the privilege as private individuals to act outside the democratic process.

 

[TWA Dude]

I think it went a lot deeper than just "not liking" the passengers in question. Several of the passengers felt uncomfortable too.

Several ignorant people doesn't make it any more legal.

Ah yes, the Crusades. Didn't those happen about 1500 years ago?? Sure, let's compare a 1500 year old event to what we see on the six-o'clock news during the present. Idiot.

If you'd care to pay attention to what you read you'd notice that I wasn't the one who brought up the Crusades and in any case they're not relevant to this. But nice to see that you know how to replace making a point with an insult.

 

[TWA Dude]

No, the ultimate judge of that is the PIC.

Try to pay attention. Sure the captain has the authority to boot off whomever s/he likes but afterwards s/he still has to justify it. Afterall, a policeman has a gun and can shoot people but if there isn't a good reason he gets in big trouble.

 

[LAZYB]

One skinny one wanted a seatbelt extension! I would say "we're not going anywhere until these folks are off my plane"
Good going!! The crew did the right thing!!

There you go!

Riding on an airline is an opportunity/privilege, NOT a right! If you can't pull your "head out", DON'T plan on flying! :smash:

 

[atrdriver]

Try to pay attention. Sure the captain has the authority to boot off whomever s/he likes but afterwards s/he still has to justify it. Afterall, a policeman has a gun and can shoot people but if there isn't a good reason he gets in big trouble.

No, you try to pay attention. I doubt that a court would find against the PIC of an airliner when he refused to take someone, if, in his opinion, it would not have been safe to do so. Yes, he would have to justify his position, but then again, part 91 gives the PIC pretty broad responsibilities, and along with that comes broad judgement calls. I don't think that anyone has ever challenged a Captain on 91.3. In fact, it says:

"Sec. 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."


That says FINAL AUTHORITY. Period. Not the courts, not the public, not congress, not the President, but the PIC. Always in the past the airlines have folded anad settled.

 

[LAZYB]

Geez

The problem with this logic is that it violates US law. It is not lawful to look at a passengers and decide you don't like them and kick them off. There needs to be a reason and that reason needs to be valid. To say "err on the safe side" is meaningless because the the risk is not being calculated intelligently.I'm talking about the law and you're talking about emotions. Whether I agree with the beliefs of imams or not is irrelevant. What irks me about your logic is that you something think that your beliefs supercede US law, ie, because you believe Muslims are bad people they deserve to be kicked off airplanes. You feed into their intolerance with your own.That's right, blame PC and that settles it. So if you were king all Muslims would be banned from America's skies? Who else don't you like?

What would (jesus) the ACLU do?uke:

If your homeland is overrun and occupied by hordes of "displaced" and unwanted foreigners, call the ACLU.

If you're in a fight for your life, call the ACLU. :nuts:

Where the he!! is my gun...:uzi:

 

[NEDude]

I have to admit that I tend to be more on the "liberal" side of things, but I support 100% the actions of the crew if they felt uncomfortable with how these guys were acting. We don't know the whole story yet, and we probably may never know. But the DHS, FBI, and FAA can't constantly tell us that our judgement is one of the last lines of defense, and then criticize us when we use our judgement.

 

[VABB]

No, you try to pay attention. I doubt that a court would find against the PIC of an airliner when he refused to take someone, if, in his opinion, it would not have been safe to do so. Yes, he would have to justify his position, but then again, part 91 gives the PIC pretty broad responsibilities, and along with that comes broad judgement calls. I don't think that anyone has ever challenged a Captain on 91.3. In fact, it says:

It's no use trying to argue with TWADude. In an earlier post on another thread he mentioned that he is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

 

[stonewall]

Where exactly did I do that?

When you said the Crusades deserved their bad reputation. See? Even the most educated and tolerant among us can make judgements.

"Suspicion" is a legal term.

You're parsing. Weak.

Nice of you to defend ignorance.

Nice of you display extreme arrogance.

I needed no such training but others did.

Yet more arrogance. Tell me, how does it feel to be the only person in America COMPLETELY FREE of unfounded bias and prejudice? You're sounding more and more like a pompous ass with each post.

Sounds like you do too

When all else fails, go with the ad hominem attack. I asked earlier if my feelings about Islam's deserved reputation made me a bigot...I see you think it does. You make judgments about the Crusades, I'll make them about global jihad. Get off your high horse.

 

[SkiFishFly]

, spare me any attempt to enlighten me about islam. I know who my enemies are: Anyone who wants to eradicate me, and anyone who stands by and defends their "right" to do it...

I'm 100% with you here.

 

[TWA Dude]

That says FINAL AUTHORITY. Period. Not the courts, not the public, not congress, not the President, but the PIC.

If the PIC gets fired for not following company policy he loses his authority. 'nuff said.

 

[TWA Dude]

When you said the Crusades deserved their bad reputation.

What do the Crusades have to do with religion? They were about power, not religion. The Crusaders were nothing more than murdering hoardes. If you want to believe they were "religious" murdering hoardes that's your prerogative.

You're parsing. Weak.

No, my point goes to the root of this issue which is what constitutes suspicious behavior. Simply praying does not. Ignorant people may not recognize normal prayer and thus report it as "suspicious" behavior. That's when an informed employee surveys the situation and makes a decision, and hopefully the right one.

Tell me, how does it feel to be the only person in America COMPLETELY FREE of unfounded bias and prejudice?

Are you going to call me an Arab-lover next?

I asked earlier if my feelings about Islam's deserved reputation made me a bigot...I see you think it does.

Lemme get this straight. I choose not to answer your question so you think you can answer for me? Who's arrogant?