Southwest sees speaking Arabic as a threat - kicks man off flight

I think the airline took appropriate action. They had no way of knowing if it was just a "feeling" or the overhearing passenger actually heard something extremely suspicious. They have to err on the side of caution and have security personnel question him, and we generally understand and accept this fact about air-travel post-9/11. It sucks for the passenger who got booted from the plane, assuming he didn't knowingly orchestrate this for publicity purposes (a scenario that is, sadly, not implausible). But the alternative of just ignoring the complaint would be rightly viewed as inexcusably negligent if this person actually turned out to be a terrorist.

 

So, uh, why does the term "the martyrs" make you go fudge-factory in your pants again?

 

The voice of reason.

 

Well, he didn't turn out to be a terrorist. To use Bobby's frequent line of reasoning, if you simply shoot everyone who's scary, it will be unfortunate, but much safer! It's a stupid line of reasoning.

Your idea about "publicity purposes" makes me lose respect for you as a poster. (I know: your respect for me is already in negative digits )

So, if I have a flight to China, say, which I have had many times, and I don't want to have a damn passenger beside me for 13 hours, I know what to do! "Dude was talking terrorist in his phone!"

What they should really do is detain the complainer and the complainee. The complainee will be overjoyed to miss his/her flight, rather than being blown up by a terrorist.

 

Hey, how about you repeat this ten times:

a link doesn't have to be a perfect relationship for it to be a link-a link is bidirectional: some baseball players are on steroids. It doesn't mean all baseball players are on steroids or all steroids are used by baseball players. I have linked some baseball players with steroids. I have linked steroids with some baseball players. I have linked steroids with baseball players.

terrorists generally speak Arabic -> some (in fact you imply many) terrorists speak Arabic. a link doesn't have to be a perfect relationship for it to be a link-a link is bidirectional: some terrorists speak Arabic. It doesn't mean all Arabic speakers are terrorists or that all terrorists speak Arabic. It does mean I have linked some Arabic speakers with terrorism. I have linked terrorism and Arabic. I have linked Arabic and terrorism.

Jesus, I don't think you even know what you're trying to say.

The term LINKED does not mean PERFECT CAUSATION, otherwise s**t just got real for ice cream and murder.

 

My bad: The complainer will love to be taken off the flight with the terrorist, to avoid being blown up!

 

do you agree that the FBI interrogation, the FBI dispatch to the plane, the personal search after he got off the plane triggered by asking "is this anti-Islamic bias" is a bit much, or do you think it is standard process. Do you think it should be standard process?

 

Bobby, we know you are here and we know you are afraid not only of terrorists, but of me!

I'm an American. I share some of your values. I won't hurt you. I'm trying to help you.

Now, if someone says "the martyrs" in English, you wanna boot them of a flight?

And, if I tell the flight attendant ur blowing McVeigh (metaphorically), because it's a long flight and I want a vacant seat next to me, you will be cool with being removed from the flight, for protocol and all. . . .

 

This is just you yet again showing your inadequacy when it comes to reading comprehension. The conversation was about that idiot sirbaihu's straw man argument that was suggesting that someone was arguing that all Arab speaking people are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists. In context, when I say that no one made a link between being speaking Arabic and being Muslim and when I said that no one made a link between speaking Arabic and being a terrorist the meaning should have been abundantly clear to all but those who are quite literally mentally r****ded. Unfortunately, you are just an embarrassment so I have to spell it out for you yet again. I don't know what Burger King you work at, but I can't imagine how you could be qualified for any job whatsoever based on this conversation. I truly hope that English isn't your first language so that we can blame your failures on that.

 

Do you know the difference between a link (which may be partial, and bidirectional) and perfect causation? Or hell, even correlation?

That's the difference between "I'm the first idiot to have linked terrorism and Arabic" and "I'm the idiot who didn't claim speaking Arabic is perfectly correlated with being a terrorist."

You've obviously never worked in a job where words and being able to express yourself matter.

And I don't get why you're ragging on fast food workers, who I imagine will occupy a higher social status then you once the fight for $15 kicks in. Do you have a dog around just to feel better or something?

 

I don't think standard process should include any additional action against him just because he is Muslim or is asking if there is an anti-Islamic bias. If that's what happened here, then it isn't right.

But, if they have a complaint from another passenger that he was saying something very suspicious, I think he needs to be questioned by appropriate authorities. If you have other ideas on a better way to handle that situation, I'd like to hear it.

 

You gotta stop biting my rhymes, MC Bobby.

First I say "blow your mind" then you say "blow your mind." Then I imagine you working at McDonald's, and you bring up Burger King. You are definitely reading me, and I was not serious about that second base thing! Guys! I did not go to second base with Bobby. That was a poetical flourish. I think Bobby is a dude, not a chick. Come on and get your ass whooped by me some more, Bobby the male! This is WWE, not MMA.

 

Hey Bobby, I'm going out to dinner. I will destroy you l8r. tty

 

He's already made it clear that he'd simply ignore the complaint by the passenger....which is actually better than his boy Lou who suggested throwing the passenger who brought the complaint forward off the plane.

 

^ He's off the plane at this point. Let's interrogate him about his dad who was killed in Abu Ghraib.

Pretty much nothing in the second paragraph should have happened.

 

Sorry kiddo, it's been a LONG time since I've worked in a place where I had to worry about people being as slow as you. When you work among people who are largely at least halfway intelligent you can assume that people will follow along in conversation.

I do hope that your fight for $15 works out for you, I'll be interested on your thoughts once you are replaced by automation.

 

I've already made it clear exactly why that question is harebrained and irrelevant.

 

That wasn't the question I asked. If the appropriate action is to remove a passenger simply because another passenger feels uncomfortable/nervous/suspicious about another, then there needs to be a complete revision of what is considered established procedure.

Do you believe Southwest would have kicked off a white passenger simply because another passenger had "heard" something he or she said and felt it was a security concern? Or would they have tried to establish the exact issue and then proceed with business as usual when it turned out to be a case of mishearing something?

 

...I work on automating others lol.

Bobby, you wouldn't know the difference between Python and Javascript if I slapped you in the face with it, and I find it hilarious that you are constantly chirping others on their lives and careers. It makes me think that you are very very sad indeed that this is the only recourse you have left.

I don't feel the need to constantly point out your 20 posts/day, and I sure as hell don't need to talk about whatever career prospects you have to point out the flaws in your thinking.

 

Yes, you have, you've made it clear that you don't understand it. You've made it clear that you don't understand many things.