If that was the case, then US Air will deserve whatever bad publicity/legal costs that come its way. I can understand if they were kept from boarding the first flight, but after they were cleared and were determined to pose no threat to anyone, they should have been compensated somewhat by US Air on the spot, at least put on another flight to get where they were going. Instead, this will probably become a legal issue and there will be some settlement to follow...
I'm siding with deepblue here. I'm sure that not all of the worried passengers and flight attendants were pro-Bush Christian fundamentalists. They're just ignorant and scared people afraid of getting blown up. Law enforcement has to respond in this situation with so many concerns. And if you think blaming Bush and the laws he passes concerning this makes you feel better, look around to the people willing to support it with their action and inaction. This paranoia is endemic to our country as a whole, and any president, Democrat or Republican, will fast track these laws to make those scared voters feel better, if only for the voters to get off his case.
Honestly - if 6 religious looking Muslims are chanting prayers as they enter a plane, and arguing angerly while cursing under their breath, and talking about killings and criticizing the U.S. - yeah, that's going to get me worried. You don't go onto a plane and start chanting like that - because it's known that a lot of terrorists say a prayer before acting - or shout things like "Allah Akbar". Not on a plane! And you definitely shouldn't be arguing loudly on a plane - not matter what race you are. Stay away from politics too. That shouldn't just apply to Muslims. It's a plane for crying out loud and with security the way it is - you'd think these guys would find a quiet place to pray in the airport before boarding! And you'd think they would behave pleasently on a plane - peaceful. I can understand their anger, but I can also understand others reactions. They must have really arroused suspicion for multiple passenger to be worried. Let's not just condemn the airline, let's make sure these guys weren't behaving in a way that is justifiably of concern.
I agree with you - unless U.S. Air is claiming that they created a disturbance by behaving in a way that was not acceptable by airline passengers (yelling/arguing loudly for instance).
That is a good point but from knowing someone with Turrets I can tell you that having it frequently causes problems. Anyway my point is that all sides need to be more understanding. We shouldn't be acting rashly on perceived threats without more cultural understanding. At the sametime people's should be more aware of how their actions could be mistakenly perceived by others. So yes if someone has a form of turrets that causes them to yell out "I will kill you all!" at random times will have to live with the fact that they will be frequently subjected to undue scrutiny.
You know New Yorker you sig says "To be certain is the opposite of being open minded" yet you spend most of your time justifying close minded opinions such as "well its right and understandable for the passengers to go with their frearful first instinct", "Its understandable the cops should taser a guy multiple times since they are cops and you should submit to them", or "don't question JVG. he knows more than you." If you're for open mindedness would you rather look at something critically than just defending first impressions and/ or authority figures?
you do realize that muslims are required to pray five times every day at specific times. that means if you must and theres no chapel around praying at the airport. the utter ignorance ofthe masses is no excuse to abandon religion im sure in islam. no one was talking about killing americans.stop getting your facts from ann coulters latest drivel. andthe airline is absolutely to blame for refusing to allow them to board the next plane after they were cleared. why the hell shouldn't it be blamed?
It is not the job of muslims to give in to irrational fear, and paranoia. It is the job of the irrational, and paranoid to to correct their outlook.
If they were in prayer, I would begin to get nervous that other passengers might over react, and do something stupid, so I would watch out for paranoid irrational passengers to try and give the Muslims a hard time.
why in gods name do people think that the next terrorist is gonna be wearing a big turban and praying loudly before getting on a plane or whatever? richard reid, jose padilla...these weren't the typical terrorist descriptions. the terrorists are obviously not dumb.
Are you really that clueless? What kind of a fool mistakes fighting for American rights and freedoms as desire not to hurt someone's feelings? Protecting rights has to do with upholding the very foundation and roots of this nation, and nothing to do with protecting people's feelings. You have shown an immense lack of understanding of American tradition, principles, and foundations in your posts in this thread. I wish you that you could be a better American.
Or I would take it the same way as if 6 Christians were on the plane saying "God, God, God". Otherwise your just race hating. What also seems to be lost on you TJ is that you lump these people into the "we do what we got to do to prevent terrorism". These 6 men arent associated with terrorism. If Id have a guess at it, more people were killed in the name of Christianity, the ever people hijacked on planes.
Yes, but to be open-minded means that you have to realize that there is truth in thos "closed" minded opinions you so detest. I notice your bias is to assume that the minority is always the victim - to me, that's very closed minded. To be open-minded is to question the conventional wisdom and say - maybe the authorities acted correctly? Maybe it's very logical to evict 6 praying and angry imams from an airplane - maybe that's smart and not so irrational. But you can't even consider it. I can thing about individual rights and I know how evil racism and things like police brutality are...but too often everyone jumps against the corporation or the authority and side with the victims despite the lack of evidence in either direction. There for, I must take a position that keeps in mind that hey - there is uncertainity here. This isn't an obvious case of closed-minded paranoia. I am espousing to withhold judgement, where you and other are espousing to pass it in favor of the victim....are you certain? Because if you are - then you're not being very open-minded.
If my religon required me to yell out and scream "I will die for God's vengence" anytime I sat down I wouldn't be surprised if I got kicked out of airplanes a lot. Now that's an extreme example....but i'm just saying just because you are following your beliefs doesn't mean you aren't rationally perceived as threatning by other people.
if that were true, it would be relevant. it's not. if people praying makes you nervous, i'm real sorry.
if people were praying for the stock i sold short to go up - then i'd definitely be nervous. But anything else, including praying for global destruction or even for the plane i'm on to crash is fine by me. I really don't believe in the power of prayer except when it comes to stocks. Still, I can understand how praying can freak people out. Think about it...what's the last thing most people do before they die? They pray and make their peace with god. So to some degree, it's not irrational to be suspecious of someone who is praying on an airplance - because they may very well be praying for a sucessful trip if they have a fear of flying...but they also may be making their peace with god. So let's not assume there's no logic in these people's reactions. Let's not jump to conclusions by saying that the people there are jumping to conclusions. I mean, that would be a kinded of sad irony wouldn't it?
To play advocate for the man in the red tights, How about the Sikh requirement that all men wear a sword? Would that suffice as a replacement for New Yorkers quandary for discussion purposes? Going on, the first thing I would like to say is I don't approve of what happened. But in more general terms I would point out that most fear, at least in the modern American's day to day life, is not rational. As far as I know the pilot's only options are to fly with the passengers who have been objected to or kick them off the plane. Putting myself in the place of the pilot I kick them off every time if the passengers who are objecting appear noticeably upset; I wouldn't want to be in the air with an unresolved 'situation' between two passengers. Perhaps it would make sense to give the pilots the option of offering tickets on a different flight to the person who is afraid? I don't know if that would have helped here, I think having more than two extreme options would make some sense. But my real point is that forcing passingers to fly with people that they are genuinely afraid of, legitimately or not, is not a particularly safe or good option.
huge difference between wearing a sword and praying. to the point that the comparison is absurd. even under the law...there's tons of case law regarding laws being upheld if their purpose isn't to discriminate, even if they do. there are legit reasons to keep people from wearing swords on planes. the fact that it hits sikhs harder is insignificant. the purpose isn't to discriminate against sikhs. the purpose is to preserve safety. good luck making the same argument for prayer with a straight face. the truth is, if i got on a plane with my white Irish skin, closed my eyes and said a silent prayer to God, most of you wouldn't think to be nervous about it. you might think i was strange. that's it.
OK, lets try something else. Are you familiar with EgyptAir Flight 990? Before the plane crashed, the pilot said a prayer. The NTSB has ruled that the plane crashed as a result of suicide because the text of the prayer was determined to be fatalistic. [rquoter] An investigation by the NTSB determined that the relief first officer, Gamil Al-Batouti, at the controls while the captain was out of the cabin, turned off the autopilot, and deliberately crashed the plane into the ocean, while calmly reciting "Tawakalt ala Allah" ("I put my trust in God") and counteracting the captain's efforts to recover from the dive. His motivation for these actions can only be guessed and are not addressed, but suicide or homicidal intentions towards some of the passengers or crew are possibilities in light of the NTSB analysis. [/rquoter] The official Egyptian claim is that it was a normal prayer that one would say during a moment when you were about to crash. They came up with an alternate plausible explanation where the first officer took the plane off of autopilot and initiated the dive as a reaction to a catastrophic mechanical failure and he was trying to save the plane. I personally believe the Egyptian version of events, but obviously it was possible for the NTSB to misinterpret this prayer as something ominous. What if someone was afraid of flying and was chanting a prayer repeatedly that could be confused with a 'suicide chant'? If someone were chanting this prayer repeatedly, and someone complained would that be sufficient reason to remove someone from a flight? Again this doesn't apply to this case, and I'm not taking the position that the removal of the passingers was just.
allahu akbar means god is great. allah-god. hu=is. akbar=great. when one prays depending on what prayer it is that is recited sometimes aloud. would a terrorist really show his religion so openly if he was planning on blowing up something an hour later? at an airport? to assume that would be the case is rational?
