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

So what you would have done is trigger a disproportionate response to a non-threat? Thanks for exposing your drone-like reasoning. I can totally see why they put you in charge of USB security!

You're better off just saying what you really think rather than hiding behind your tortured illogic. You're the one who asked the question as if the words really mattered. Why do they matter? Is it speaking certain words in Arabic that matter?

what colours are you referring to btw? It'll help tailor my answer AGAIN. Are you looking for me to reveal that I'm a terrorist because I question a pattern of irrational responses? I can come up with something witty around that!

 

You keep calling it a "disproportionate response" and that's just not the case. The response what exactly what was called for, as I've told you many times now, in an airport or in a plane, any potential threat is taken seriously as procedure....and that's the smart thing to do. The woman expressed concerns about a potential threat and they handled it by the book. There's nothing at all to b**** about.....if there was, the kid would be suing.

You've embarrassed yourself quite a bit in this thread, it's probably best if you stop now instead of continuing to dig the hole deeper.

 

Hey Bobby, was it embarassing when you asked for examples of my "narrative" and you got them, and when I asked you for a few you can't even go to the depths of finding any even when there should be many lurking around? Hell, I took a quick look for you, not that I'm going to do the work for you beyond that.

Show me some examples of procedure in action. Show me examples of the book in action so we can compare.

My "established procedure" is to assume you cannot be bothered to actually think or reason through.

 

I can appreciate not wanting to deter citizen reporting by holding up flights or delaying people as witnesses. At the same time, your flip attitude about inconveniencing the minority to serve the majority ignores that people have civil rights, one of which ensures that people should have equal access to public accommodations. Airlines have an out to say that denial of service is on security grounds, but with a recurring theme like this where airlines repeatedly deny services to Muslims based on unsupported accusations by fellow citizens, I think there is an inkling of a problem.

At the same time, Southwest is in a tough spot and it's hard to see how they can behave differently. If a person says they've heard something suspicious, they'd be remiss to ignore it. They can investigate him, but what if they miss something or get outsmarted and the guy blows up the plane anyway? It's probably 99% likely that the suspicion is without merit in the first place, but that small chance of a plane blowing up is a powerful incentive to not play the percentages.

In general, I think I'm okay with the way Southwest handles these cases, with one exception. I don't see why -- after they've removed a suspect from his scheduled flight and he's been investigated and cleared by the FBI -- why they can't give him an apology and a seat on the very next flight to his destination. Just for good customer service and public relations, I would think you would want to treat that customer extra nice. I understand they don't want to admit fault, but I think their legal department could craft an apology that placates the customer without giving his lawsuit much ammunition. For me as the disinterested, non-Arabic and non-Muslim public, I would be placated to hear they treated him right once the issue was cleared up. Instead, I hear they continued to act like dicks to a guy who was (it should be obvious by now) wrongly accused.

She might or might not have been a Muslim. She may or may not have been an Arabic speaker. Southwest says she was, but of course it is in their interest to say so. And we don't know who she was, so there is no basis by which the public can verify the company's claim. Given that we now know the kid is not a terrorist, I have to conclude the woman did mishear or misconstrue what he said on the phone, which leads me to rather doubt her language expertise in the first place.

 

You showed some examples of people getting kicked off flights and you foolishly, embarrassingly assume that those are the only people to get kicked off flights and that it isn't a regular occurrence. You further assume that the only reason they got kicked off was that they were Muslims or that they spoke Arabic. The reality is that if you act like a dick on a plane, you get kicked off the plane. Most of the examples you gave were people who were causing trouble by being a dick to flight attendants or other passengers.

Look, I get it, all you "cair" about is your foolish little narrative and it has you being a hammer and seeing everything as a nail. It's okay, cognitive biases can happen to anyone.....it's just that now that you have been called out about it, perhaps you should go re-think your life instead of continuing to embarrass yourself.

 

Exiled, of all people, expressed this first and I completely agree. I don't know what protocol is or should be in the event of a perceived threat, but once you know you were wrong, and you have grossly inconvenienced a passenger, simply refunding the ticket seems absurdly inadequate.

 

A Somali-American woman asks another passenger if they could switch seats. He agrees to it. To you, that is "acting like a dick on a plane".

 

I'm just curious to know how the examples Northside Storm gave are of people acting like dicks.

 

One of the examples is of a family that was unhappy about the seat and wanted an extra strap for their child. Using common sense, it's not a stretch to imagine that argument getting heated resulting in them being tossed off the plane. Another was a woman wanting to change seats, again, using common sense, it's likely that the person she wanted to switch with didn't want to and it caused an argument leading to the woman being removed. Things like that happen all the time on flights and you never hear about it because there isn't a narrative to push.

The assumption that "the man" was just being mean to them is pretty stupid....but that's what can happen when a hammer thinks a light bulb is a nail.

 

Your assumption contradicts the story though.

 

It contradicts the version that was told in an article trying to push a narrative, instead of buying that BS, I decided to think for myself about it and I used a bit of logic. You'd do well to do the same.

 

1. What in your mind makes it a "non-threat"?

2. The only real phrase we know of that was brought to the flight-crew's attention is "the martyrs". We don't have the other person's account.

3. No one has accused you of being a terrorist. Get off your cross.

 

Can Canadians be terrorists?

 

I know: "the martyrs" is scary AF to me. Yikes!

Guys, stopping saying "the martyrs," coz if you have black hair and say it in Arabic, I like get really scared and stuff?

Sincerely,
p***y B. McWackstain

 

Who said anything about being scarred or black hair? Also, please answer the question: what would you have done if you were a member of the flight crew?

 

I only get my news from stormfront.org

 

Sure, but they're real polite about it.

 

Well then that's probably what's wrong with you.