Southwest boots woman for shirt...

[Homie]

Some terrorists are Iranian/Persian, Afghani, Pakistani, and other. These individuals are not Arab.

Actually, they are. Not only Saudi-Arabians are Arabs. After the Arabs conquered the Middle-East and Northern Africa, they mixed with the people (that were not killed) and also left behind their language. So most Middle-Easterners who also speak Arabic consider themselves Arabs.

 

[Fifty]

Yea like those arabs who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Oh and I almost forgot about the unibomber. He must have been arab too.

 

[Homie]

A'AbarachAmadan, I know I was not being politically correct, but instead correct (get it ). But calm yourself down a bit, there are enough people in the world to defend the mainstream thought that you follow. Now to address your points:
It is very typical of lefty's like you saying that CHristians and muslims are equally commiting bad acts, none is worse. But this is blatantly ignoring the fact that there are NO Christian terrorist groups who kill people in the name of God, NONE! (Nor are there any buddhist groups or hindu groups for that matter). But the muslims have plenty! You did not mention either a caucasion or a non-muslim faith that was a world terrorist organization!

Also, I know the difference between muslims and Arabs, what in my post would indicate I don't? Reagrdless, even if not all Arabs are muslims, most are. Even if not all muslims are Arabs, most are. As we are not talking about an individual here, but groups, what is your point?

 

[Homie]

Fifty, did you read past my first sentence in the post? If not, I will quote it again for your convience:

Well, to be fair, every single terrorist is arab. The IRA are local terrorists, so are the ones in Spain (forget what they are called), both these European terrorist groups are local groups that fight over land. but all the world terrorists are Arabs. Now some lefty is bound to call me racist or bigot, but I am saying the facts, am I wrong?

 

[Homie]

All world terrorists as of yet have been arab, it is not an opinion, but a fact. Why do you oppose this? Does it not ring a bell when you cannot think of a single non-arab world terrorist?

I know there are terrorists in local land disputes in (traditionally) Christian countries, like the already mentioned ones, and then there is the local muslim terrorists as well, the Arabs in Israel (hamas and such) and the terrorists in Chechnya (who are muslims but not Arabs I believe), but I am not talking about these local land disputes where they use terrorism. I am talking about terrorism on the grand scale, where anybody in any country can be a victim. All that have done such terrorist acts have been Arabs, 9/11, Madrid, London, Germany during the olympics (long time ago).

 

[eyrei]

So we should deny all arabs access to our airplanes?

That is rather off-topic, however. It is kind of funny how this discussion of free speech and t-shirts turned into you spouting off about arabs attacking western targets...scared?

 

[Oerdin]

You break the rules and refuse to fix it, you get tossed out. This isn't new.

The question is was the rule an unfair restriction upon her constitutionally protected right to free speech?

 

[BasketCase]

Since the people who threw her off the plane haven't been charged with anything (much less convicted) the answer is currently no.

That might change. The court system can be fickle at times, depending on how the wrestling match between various judges comes out.

 

[Oerdin]

No body gets charged even when obvious violations occur. Instead someone, like her, brings a case up in court and it works its way from there.

 

[JohnRM]

Some terrorists are Iranian/Persian, Afghani, Pakistani, and other. These individuals are not Arab.

Actually, they are. Not only Saudi-Arabians are Arabs. After the Arabs conquered the Middle-East and Northern Africa, they mixed with the people (that were not killed) and also left behind their language. So most Middle-Easterners who also speak Arabic consider themselves Arabs.

Ethnic Groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%

Ethnic Groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

Languages: Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashtu (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism

Ethnic Groups: Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun (Pathan), Baloch, Muhajir (immigrants from India at the time of partition and their descendants)

Languages: Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Siraiki (a Punjabi variant) 10%, Pashtu 8%, Urdu (official) 8%, Balochi 3%, Hindko 2%, Brahui 1%, English (official and lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries), Burushaski, and other 8%

'Nuff said...

 

[The Yankee]

All world terrorists as of yet have been arab, it is not an opinion, but a fact. Why do you oppose this? Does it not ring a bell when you cannot think of a single non-arab world terrorist?

IRA, FARC, KKK....

In fact, let's make a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organisations

Usually I'm loathe to point to Wikipedia, however, this provides a decent list which is a good starting point.

 

[Homie]

Oh my gosh! I hate people who don't read entire posts and then quotes something that has already been adressed! Like you Yankee! Or the ones that purposefully ignores something that has already been mentioned, like you Eyrei. Why do you do it?
This is lame, it is not worth my time to keep quoting myself to answer your posts. Bye!

 

[The Yankee]

That's too bad...because there are at least several multinational terrorist groups of other faiths and surprisingly few (compared to the greater number) of Muslim groups that focus on anything other than what's inside their own borders.

 

[BasketCase]

No body gets charged even when obvious violations occur.

Since people right here in CFC disagree on whether anything was violated, I don't see any "obvious" violations at all.

 

[eyrei]

Oh my gosh! I hate people who don't read entire posts and then quotes something that has already been adressed! Like you Yankee! Or the ones that purposefully ignores something that has already been mentioned, like you Eyrei. Why do you do it?
This is lame, it is not worth my time to keep quoting myself to answer your posts. Bye!

No, I didn't ignore your comment about not banning arabs from flying. But if that isn't the goal then why are you arguing about whether all terrorists are arabs?

 

[Elrohir]

The question is was the rule an unfair restriction upon her constitutionally protected right to free speech?

That was asked and answered: This was not public property, it was a corporations vehicle, up which it is a privilege, not a right, to travel. She had to abide by the owners rules while on the airplane, or find another means of transportation. If she doesn't like that, tough luck.

 

[Irish Caesar]

The question is was the rule an unfair restriction upon her constitutionally protected right to free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Looks like the answer is no.

Southwest Airlines made the rule, not Congress.

And the "f" word really doesn't have a place in intelligent arguments or polite society anyway.

 

[Grisu]

Well, to be fair, every single terrorist is arab...

then you go on re-defining terrorist as you want. it won't matter one bit to the person blown to piecese of the terrorist in question is some local white supremacist, or some evil global terrorist Arab....

Also, I know the difference between muslims and Arabs, what in my post would indicate I don't? Reagrdless, even if not all Arabs are muslims, most are. Even if not all muslims are Arabs, most are. As we are not talking about an individual here, but groups, what is your point?

your posts seem to suggest otherwise, and as John clearly showed, you don't have to good a grasp at who Arabs really are.....
oh and now suddely we're of course discussing groups not individuals when some minutes earlier "every single terrorist" was arab (not many, not most, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM).....

Or the ones that purposefully ignores something that has already been mentioned

.... or like you who conveniently ignore John's post about the arabs

 

[Oerdin]

Since people right here in CFC disagree on whether anything was violated, I don't see any "obvious" violations at all.

You might want to reread that.

No one claimed it was an obvious violation. You claimed that it must not have been a violation since no one was arrested to which I said that even in the event of an obvious violation no one gets arrested. Instead, the victimized party is supposed to file a law suit against the supposed violators. If you'd take 15 seconds to read the whole post prior to responding misunderstandings like this wouldn't occur.

 

[Oerdin]

That was asked and answered: This was not public property, it was a corporations vehicle, up which it is a privilege, not a right, to travel. She had to abide by the owners rules while on the airplane, or find another means of transportation. If she doesn't like that, tough luck.

You do realize that in the past the SCOTUS has ruled differently from what you're saying, right? Bus companies have gotten in trouble in the 1960's for kicking off blacks who had pro-civil rights buttons on their shirts. The bus companies claimed it was provacitive and as a private company they had the right to deny them service if they choose. The SCOTUS disagreed.

The courts have become much more reactionary now though so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I personally think she's going to win though that will depend upon exactly which circuit hears the case. If it is in a very conservative district then she'll likely lose on indecincy grounds but if it is in a progressive area then it should be a slam dunk.