Flight Club: How to be naughty on a plane

[warpus]

Show me any recent and consistent examples of another religion performing similar acts.

Religions can't perform acts, silly.

 

[Katheryn]

If your rights are violated and you are discriminated because of your atheism isn't that one case too many?
Ouch.
Have no idea how this all fits to this other than being normal blank statement towards one religion.

Profiling based into such thing as "islam is violent religion" and actions of some other people that happen to belong to same religion as you is ultimate bigotry.
Yelling loudly Allah and speaking against the US are probably something that is allowed by some of the amendments, even though risk profiling based into people behaviour (disturbing and aggressive behaviour) cannot be considered as discrimination. Praying Allah in airport terminal where you can spend long time anyhow cannot be any kind of reason to target person as possible terrorist.

What are you going on about? These are actions ON THE PLANE during boarding. You do NOT have freedom of speech on a commercial plane! You are not allowed to smoke on a plane are you? You are not allowed to yell, "Fire!" in a plane. There are many rights that are restricted in an airplane. The rules that apply on an aircraft are similar to those on a ship. The captain is responsible for the passengers and he is the ultimate authority. He made the decision and the airline stood by him. There are no "amendments" that protect him from the captain's judgment.


Who cares if they were praying beforehand? It was what they said on the plane, some of which scared a MUSLIM/Arabic person on the plane, who knew what they were saying because he could understand Arabic. That is how they knew they were praising Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and saying anti-american slogans.

The stewardesses and the primary person who was involved in this incident did NOT see the Imams praying in the boarding area. The woman who wrote the letter to the media said she was having dinner in the airport restaurant. She never saw them until she was ON THE PLANE.

Why don't you just read the articles? You get opinions about stuff before you even read them. That is "prejudicial".

 

[C~G]

What are you going on about?
Why don't you just read the articles? You get opinions about stuff before you even read them. That is "prejudicial".

Nice one.
Trying to put down my opinion into thinking that I haven't read the article like I would have to defend my position to you.
I spoke about racial profiling in general sense not only about this particular case.

Did you miss this part of my message?

even though risk profiling based into people behaviour (disturbing and aggressive behaviour) cannot be considered as discrimination.

I said that if you profile based into one's apparent religion it's discrimination but if you are profiling based into one's disturbing behaviour profiling should be OK. Speaking arabic what you don't understand (or you could start picking all non-english speakers out of plane) or praying on airport terminal don't belong to this "OK-category". (Whether the actions happen on the airport terminal or in the airplane doesn't matter actually since they both may pose threat to airplane security)

If captain and crew remove people from plane only because they speak arabic they should be themselves removed from the plane.

BTW Katheryn the sources you provided were a farse, extremely biased on my view. All over the board with politics etc.
Maybe apart from that local paper which had actual few tidbits of info.

But since flying isn't a right its a privilage they can cry all they want. If the airline thinks some one is a threat it is in their best intrest to keep its customers safe by not allowing that person to board or to make that person go through extra security. If these people have problems with how the private airlines in conjuntion with federal guidlines work security they don't have fly now do they? I see a bunch of frivalous lawsuits and bogus charges being filed. It will do nothing but cast dispersions on them selves and other muslims, a segment allready looked at with a weary eye.

So if Wal-Mart puts out sign that says "No Muslims Allowed" it's good and right, and lawsuits will bounce back and put weary eye on to the muslims since it's "privledge" not "right".

I would bet there are actual federal laws against discrimination based into religion since your constitution is based into such undeniable rights which probably includes such "priviledges" as using services of commercial airline.

Show me any recent and consistent examples of another religion performing similar acts.

If you are christian I fear you start shooting people like they do all the time. I think you should be profiled for that.

There are a lot of behaviors that are allowed under most circumstances, and even protected by the Constitution, that are not allowed in an airport or on an airplane.

It's clear airport and airplane have different kind of rules. They must however apply to everyone and you cannot pick up certain group as overly "suspicious" based only into their skin tone, religion etc.

I spoke also above profiling based into people's behaviour.

Under normal circumstances, I can walk down the street mildly intoxicated, shouting Praise Jesus or Allah, praising Osama or Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazinski, carrying a box cutter, a book of matches, and a bottle of hair spray. I will probably be denied entry to an airliner for doing any of these things. I will not be denied entry for simply praying, and neither will any Muslim.

Well, that would be good.

The imams knew exactly what they were doing. They were doing everything possible to make themselves look suspicious so that they could claim discrimination and sue. Several mainstream news agencies have already reported on the likely connections to terrorist organizations of some of these imams. I'm glad that not all news outlets are as irresponsible as CBS.

Whether they knew what they were doing isn't an issue whether they were discriminated or not. Issue in that sense is that whether their actions were such that could be considered of being worth taking them off the plane because of possible suspicion towards dangering passengers. Personally I can say these things are hard to pick out and in this particular case without actually being in there almost impossible. It's truly the court to decide whether their behaviour was such that would imply there was something going on.

However if they really planned this they might cause more problems to the muslims themselves so it's rather undesirable behaviour whatever was the case and the ruling ends up being.

 

[Katheryn]

I said that if you profile based into one's apparent religion it's discrimination but if you are profiling based into one's disturbing behaviour profiling should be OK. Speaking arabic what you don't understand (or you could start picking all non-english speakers out of plane) or praying on airport terminal don't belong to this "OK-category". (Whether the actions happen on the airport terminal or in the airplane doesn't matter actually since they both may pose threat to airplane security)

If captain and crew remove people from plane only because they speak arabic they should be themselves removed from the plane.

Again, you didn't research the incident! All the reports are in. The FBI, the Airline, TSA, the Airport security, all of them are done, and it was ruled that the captain and the crew behaved properly.

I said several times that the person who became alarmed at the Arabic speaking was the person who could UNDERSTAND Arabic, because of the content, praising Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and condemning Bush and Iraq. They were also shouting as they boarded the plane. That means walking down the aisle of the plane, shouting.

The Captain and the crew, HAD YOU READ THE ARTICLE, followed a particular level-based criteria. They were at "level 1" when they asked them to deplane.

BTW Katheryn the sources you provided were a farse, extremely biased on my view. All over the board with politics etc.
Maybe apart from that local paper which had actual few tidbits of info.

A local paper, with local reporters, working on a local story, is considered the BEST source of information. There are several articles linked to that article in that paper, and IF YOU HAD CLICKED ON THE LINK I PROVIDED, you would have seen them. So, I can see you didn't even bother to look into this incident before you came up with a totally biased and prejudiced opinion. Which, of course, you use to pull out the race card and stick your head back in the sand.

 

[C~G]

Again, you didn't research the incident! All the reports are in. The FBI, the Airline, TSA, the Airport security, all of them are done, and it was ruled that the captain and the crew behaved properly.

I said I talked about in general level about profiling.

Whether the reports are in or out doesn't really matter since there could be still wide spread standardization of profiling going on towards muslims which would mean they are being discriminated.
So all the security folk might had behaved correctly according to their own rules but we can probably question such rules if they discriminate, don't we?

I said several times that the person who became alarmed at the Arabic speaking was the person who could UNDERSTAND Arabic, because of the content, praising Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and condemning Bush and Iraq. They were also shouting as they boarded the plane. That means walking down the aisle of the plane, shouting.

Now as I said that could be considered as disturbing behaviour whatever their ethnicity and religion is. These two factors are just surplus that can be added in if other criteria already put these people falling down to "suspicious"-category. But if the race and religion comes first and other such groups aren't monitored as closely then you are making racial profiling, period.

The Captain and the crew, HAD YOU READ THE ARTICLE, followed a particular level-based criteria. They were at "level 1" when they asked them to deplane.

I don't know about that particular criteria, they might go "level 1" when someone mention's Allah's name.
If you have link that shows the criteria please provide one.

A local paper, with local reporters, working on a local story, is considered the BEST source of information. There are several articles linked to that article in that paper,

Not necessarily best since there was lot of opinion based editorial content present. The article writer had clearly already made her opinion about it and it showed.

Neither would I trust completely some article that says "these imams were discriminated!"


Now the question is:

Officer Brad Wingate wrote in his report:"[T]he request for seatbelt extensions, the prior praying and utterances about Allah and the U.S. in the gate area and the seating configuration chosen among the traveling group was suspicious."

Is this kind of behaviour enough getting anyone else out of plane or do you need to be belonging to specific race or relgion to qualify for to be suspicious and escorted out of plane?

I would say that without actually any other information available other from that report (about the background of these people including their religion)makes people indeed possible fall under suspicious-category however we don't know what is the policy towards muslim passengers in general and it's effect to the judgement also in this case so the question about discrimination might be valid.

and IF YOU HAD CLICKED ON THE LINK I PROVIDED, you would have seen them. So, I can see you didn't even bother to look into this incident before you came up with a totally biased and prejudiced opinion. Which, of course, you use to pull out the race card and stick your head back in the sand

Yes, of course, you must be right about my ignorance towards these "credible" sources.

The race card and head in the sand part I don't think I need to even bother commenting.

 

[Truronian]

I don't see religion on that list. Islamic extremists come in many different races. I think that two or three of these Imams were black.

Then how do you tell who is Muslim and who is not? Arrest the ones that pray is neither effective nor just.

 

[El_Machinae]

Call it what you want, singling out individuals due to their skin colour, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. is not something we should be doing.

As some people know, the problem with profiling is that the people who are disadvantaged are the same people who would then be complaining about the profiling.

And then what happens is you get people, who fit the profile, who then complain. Then, they're treated poorly by people who're not being hurt by the profiling.

You have to be careful; if there is a concerted effort to discriminate against a group, and the group starts complaining - you have to worry about whether their complaints are legit or not. If one is never charged with 'driving while black' or 'flying while arab', then one doesn't know how adversely their lives are affected - and it's very easy to be callous about the 'whining'.

This is why I oppose profiling at security centres. If the little-old-white lady doesn't like being searched too often, then she'll ask for the security protocols to be reduced. If she's never bothered, she could care less how many arabs are detained.

That said: I think these gentlemen went too far. I think that asking for weapons is the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". But, the airlines are now aware of this abuse, and can make new policy.

 

[Jawz II]

wild guess its something anti-muslim?

 

[skadistic]

So if Wal-Mart puts out sign that says "No Muslims Allowed" it's good and right, and lawsuits will bounce back and put weary eye on to the muslims since it's "privledge" not "right".

Denial of service is a crime if its solely based on religion. Wal*mart can however bar any and all people who act in what is deamed a threatening manner and could potentualy cause harm to its customers and employies. Wal*Mart was an obligation to protect thoes people. Again you do not have a right to enter into Wal*mart or an airline with out being beholden by thier rules. No one denied these men because of their religion it was all about their action. They acted scetchy and drew attention to them selves. I'll ask again. How many muslims flew in the last year and behaved like regular people and didn't get the security respounce these guys did?

 

[C~G]

No one denied these men because of their religion it was all about their action

That is probable and that is how it should be.

I'll ask again. How many muslims flew in the last year and behaved like regular people and didn't get the security respounce these guys did?

Well the number must be quite high.

Look, I'm not saying these particular people weren't suspicious or acted all stupid, I'm saying that such profiling that is based into religion is discrimination and also I find in general it quite inefficient method since it's quite probable the next hijackers won't be yelling their god's name in vain.

In this case as I already mentioned these guys acted behaved in such manner that could have caused the incident anyhow. But I guess we're beating a dead horse already.

 

[skadistic]

That is probable and that is how it should be.
Well the number must be quite high.

Look, I'm not saying these particular people weren't suspicious or acted all stupid, I'm saying that such profiling that is based into religion is discrimination and also I find in general it quite inefficient method since it's quite probable the next hijackers won't be yelling their god's name in vain.

In this case as I already mentioned these guys acted behaved in such manner that could have caused the incident anyhow. But I guess we're beating a dead horse already.

Beating dead horses is fun and it softens up the meat later for when you make jerky......mmmmmmmm equine jerky.

 

[JerichoHill]

Asking for seatbelt extensions and sitting in the same pattern that previous hijackers had used?

Hell, that's enough probable cause.