home

Racial Profiling at U.S. Airways

Six imams attending a conference in Minneapolis took time to pray at the gate before boarding a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix. A passenger handed a note to a flight attendant pointing out the "6 suspicious Arabic men" on the plane. Disturbed by their "unsettling" behavior -- which apparently consisted of praying and asking for seat belt extensions -- the crew told the police that the imams needed to be removed. They were escorted from the plane in handcuffs and detained for five hours before authorities conceded that they posed no threat.

U.S. Airways refused to book the imams on another flight to Phoenix. According to the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims (both passengers and airline employees) have more complaints about U.S. Airways than other airlines. The incident prompted the Council and the NAACP to ask for Congressional hearings on racial profiling in airports.

Can you imagine the outcry from the religious right if six Christian pastors were removed from a flight because they prayed together at the gate? U.S. Airways would be deservedly out of business in a week.

< Georgia Banishment Law Criticized | Another Wrongful Conviction in Santa Clara County >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Advice? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    "cursing US involvement with Saddam before flight."?

    What country are you from? Your juvenile analogy, getting caught breaking the rules/law, red handed, or red haired, has nothing in common with this horrifying event. Save your advice for when fascism is legislated.  Talking politics in public is a not a crime. Are you advocating that it be one? To make us safer, or more afraid? Soon the only real fear we will have is from those we have entrusted to "protect" us.

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    I'm advising using common sense. Nothing more.

    [ Parent ]
    Common sense? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    What would you have advised Rosa Parks to do. Cower in fear because she was not allowed to act as her white bretheren?

    [ Parent ]
    squeaky (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:33:25 PM EST
    Come on, Rosa Park?! Completely different situations.

    [ Parent ]
    Different? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:04:57 PM EST
    Rosa had darker skin than the immams, yes, Also the difference was that Rosa Parks was breaking a racist law as a protest and expected to be arrested. The immams were breaking no law. Just plain and pure bigotry by all that conspired in their removal from the plane.

    Don't you think that the racist laws requiring African Americans to sit in the back of the bus came into existance out of fear of the other. Basic ignorance and mob rule. Just like what we are seeing today.

    I think the analogy with Rosa Parks is quite apt. That is where we are heading as far as I can tell.

    [ Parent ]

    THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATEVER... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:02:17 PM EST
    ...between Rosa Parks and the Imams. You either have and can exercise civil rights OR YOU DON'T.

    Apparently, Imams do NOT.

    [ Parent ]

    BA (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    They can exercise their civil rights to their hearts content, they just can't expect all of their actions to have zero consequences. You know, common sense.

    [ Parent ]
    AIRPLANES (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:24:35 PM EST
    Rosa Parks was a hard working woman who was also a loyal citzen with no connections to a religion that is known to have members who hate the USA and just recently killed around 3000 or so of us using.... AIRPLANES.

    See the difference Bill?


    [ Parent ]

    Not (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    These dudes aren't Rosa Parks.

    [ Parent ]
    But wouldn't using common sense... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    be better applied to respecting all the rights of others?

    If we don't speak to the erosion of our rights they will disappear from the Constitution and the face of the earth faster than we are prepared to accept.

    [ Parent ]

    BA (1.50 / 2) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    Sure. But using common sense also might lead imams to choose not to attract additional negative attention to themselves as they are boarding an airplane.

    [ Parent ]
    xxx (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:25:13 PM EST
    They wanted the attention.

    [ Parent ]
    BBB (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:56:36 PM EST
    squeaky - Freedom of speech is not. Repeat not, absolute.

    By now I would think that you would know that.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with Joe Bob (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    If they went throught the same security procedures as everyone else, then they should be granted the same freedoms as everyone else. Heck, if they were saying killing Saddam was BS, I would have agreed with them. And the flight crew would have gotten a heckling earful from me.

    CC (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    And you would have been arrested and tossed off the plane.

    Works for me.

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    US Airways is racist (4.50 / 2) (#58)
    by Sailor on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    The group was taken off the flight in handcuffs, and after several hours of questioning by federal authorities, released. But though the airline refunded their tickets, U.S. Airways--which released a statement Tuesday saying it does "not tolerate discrimination of any kind"--reportedly denied them passage on any of its other flights and refused to help them obtain tickets through another airline.
    [...]
    He says everyone in the group had round-trip tickets that he had booked--and that he has the documentation to prove it. The reason he was at the front of the flight was because he was upgraded to first class because he's a frequent flyer on the airline. And the reason he asked for a seatbelt extension? Shahin says his 290-pound frame should make that obvious.
    and the folks here trying to justify it should be ashamed of themselves

    who knows?? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:54:00 PM EST
    I understand he says... what others are saying is different... who's right? I don't know.

    Let's have a trial and find out.

    Or would you want to do that?

    [ Parent ]

    Have a trial for what!? (4.50 / 2) (#80)
    by Sailor on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 09:02:06 PM EST
    The cops let them go, it's only folks like you who want to convict them for exercising their religious freedoms.

    Your constant attacks on the Constitution and advocating torture alone should qualify you to be stripped of your citizenship. If you don't believe in the basic tenets of America, move to a country that espouses your beliefs.

    [ Parent ]

    Civil suit (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    Nonsense from both of you.

    We'll put it on TV and let Judge Judy decide..
    Makes as much sense as your unqualified defense of them.

    I reference, of course, the civil suit that I am sure is forthcoming...

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (4.50 / 2) (#82)
    by aw on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 09:39:55 PM EST
    Let's have a trial and find out
    .

    A trial for not breaking the law?  They were released.  You outdo yourself every day.

    The only possible trial we're gonna see is a lawsuit  by the Imams against the airline.  He has documentation; you don't need a trial to check that out.  These guys are not going to be charged as unlawful enemy combatants, though I bet you could find a way to justify it in your own special way.

    [ Parent ]

    Initially, the story I saw, (4.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Kitt on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    the prayers were conducted before boarding the plane.

    Firstly, what to say that the note writer is correct in their assertions?

    Good ole' Jim:  

    Whether Moslems like it or not the actions of the radicals have tainted them. It would be helpful if they cleaned their own house, or at least disavowed the actions of those who want people killed over publishing a cartoon.

    Well then, I'm sure Christians won't mind when I object to their praying in public places which I've seen.

    The last time I flew (Southwest), there weren't that many passengers from St. Louis to SLC. I laid claim to a 'row' of seats, in the event no one else sat down I could stretch out. It happened as it did for several others. [After we were in the air, the flight crew even handed out more pillows if we wanted to actually lie down.]

     I saw a couple of those imans - two were pretty hefty and may have felt more comfortable with seatbelt extensions. Who cares? The flight crew could have provided the extensions. If the passenger(s) didn't use them or need them, they could have been taken back.

    There just seems to be this great sense of paranoid passivity going on as well.

    part of the problem (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    Hmmmm, where to start.

    You are free to protest Christians praying, so please do so. Of course I can't remember seeing one doing so in public, much less less at an airport departure gate, or on board an aircraft. Excluding graduation ceremonies, football games and other quasi offical events.

    I do confess that I personally have prayed several times, privately, on both military and commercial flights.

    All airlines that I have ever flown have no problem with you changing seats AFTER the door is closed and everyone is on board. I used to sleep like a baby on red eyes from LA to NYC as well as the old Pan Am 707 flights into Europe.

    Doing so before that causes confusions. I once had to ask a UAL attendant to remove the person who had chosen to sit in my preassigned bulkhead window seat, and I have seen it happen to others on other flights.

    The issue is, of course, the fact that Moslems are subject to a more rigorous examination than others  due to the events of 9/11, etc. If the Imams don't understand that then they are not intelligent. Since I think they are intelligent, I have to say they were engaged in an "in your face" action and they lost, or more likely, were successful in getting the negative attention they wanted.

    You may feel free to condem NW and society in general.

    I just say, catch a clue folks. And try to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes folks catch a clue (4.00 / 1) (#73)
    by soccerdad on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    become a racist too!!

    19/1,000,000,000 are responsible for 9-11 so lets kill or discriminate against the rest!

    Only makes sense to a racist.

    [ Parent ]

    not (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:00:34 PM EST
    Actually SD the Moslem faith is accepted by many different races, so if you have problems with Moslems, you are not a racist.

    I would have thought you knew that.

    [ Parent ]

    semantics does change what you are. (none / 0) (#76)
    by soccerdad on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:08:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Actually? (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    SD, seriously. I'm trying to get a grip on what and who you really are.

    Do you actually want to claim that "Moslem" is a race?

    And claim that based on someone's disagreement with some of the actions of some of its members, that person is a racist?

    I ask only because that is what you have done, and I just want to make sure before I put you in the "pay no attention to stack unless I need a laugh."

    [ Parent ]

    whqt a defense (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by soccerdad on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    so what you are saying taking into account all your comments about Muslims over the last year is that you hate them for their religion and not their race.

    But given that most Muslims are not white combined with your stance on immigration in the US which you show that you are out to perserve the white judeo-christian heritage then I feel comfortable with saying your hatred of Muslims is in part racial. But as you wish I'll just call you a bigot? Feel better?

    [ Parent ]

    Welcome back, SD. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    First opposing an illegal act is not evidence of anything except opposing an illegal act, which illegal immigration is. That you consider that racist demonstrates a striking inability to think in a logical manner.

    My position is, and has been, that we need to shut down the border and seek a solution to the 10-12 million, mostly hispanic illegal aliens currently in the country. That would include deporting all illegals that we capture, putting employers in jail for hiring illegals, etc. It would also give us eough time to insure that  new arrivals assimilate into America culture. To do otherwise is, long term, the creation of a balkanized country.

    Note that the above isn't for "hispanics." Note the "deporting all illegals."

    Now, I have not said that I hate Moslems, and I challenge you to link to that. That you will not because you cannot is self evident.

    I have noted that I have problems with some tenets of Islam.

    I have problems, serious problems, with the radical Moslems, and I have urged the moderate Moslems to step forth and police their own faith. That the attacks against Christians and Jews is complicated by interfaith warfare as bad as any during the Reformation of the Catholic church and the 300 or so years after/during those terrible times is a fact.

    The Catholic church may think that only its members will go to heaven, but I don't see them killing Baptists, or Methodists, etc....

    That many routinely ignore this demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the driving force behind the killing.

    That some try and use the actions of "Christians" hundreds of years ago to justify the CURRENT actions of radical Moslem terrorists is nothing less than dumb, silly and unworthy of rational thought.

    That you feel comfortable making a claim that is unsupported and despicable is neither unusual or unexpected. Welcome back, SD. Your true colors have emerged after only a very few days.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, Jim! Pretty good! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    A whole post made of straw!

    Here's your project for the day. Read thru it carefully and see if you can tell us why.

    [ Parent ]

    Rational thought? (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 08:36:39 PM EST
    That some try and use the actions of "Christians" hundreds of years ago to justify the CURRENT actions of radical Moslem terrorists is nothing less than dumb, silly and unworthy of rational thought.
    Who are you trying to kid. Your political blindspots and bigotry move you out of the "rational" category. Not to mention that no one here is trying to justify extremist violence, we are just calling you out on your bigotry.


    ONE of Northern Ireland's most notorious killers forced the suspension of the Stormont Assembly today after claiming he had thrown a bomb into Parliament Buildings.

    link

    Following your shaky argument one would have to racially profile all methodists or whatever kind of protestant Michael Stone is. And then there is the Mafia, many different nationalities all armed and dangerous, the tutsies and the hutus, all blacks are dangerous, JDL, all jews want to kill, and of course our own american white separatists along with some german neo nazis, all white people want to kill you too. Better stay under your bed ppj the world is a very dangerous place.

    BTW- Both bigotry and racism all smell the same, and your sickly sweet deodorant isn't working,

    [ Parent ]

    Question (none / 0) (#90)
    by Al on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 01:16:28 AM EST
    What is a race, PPJ? Give examples.

    [ Parent ]
    Argue (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    You want to argue that a religion is a race?

    Give us an example.

    [ Parent ]

    Most Muslims aren't white boys (none / 0) (#105)
    by soccerdad on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    still trying to finesse around the obvious aren't you. Nothing changes


    [ Parent ]
    Don't try to weasel out of this (none / 0) (#114)
    by Al on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    What's a race? Give examples.

    [ Parent ]
    wiggle? (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 01:12:53 PM EST
    Wiggle what? You are the ones claiming that to be anti-moslem is racist. I merely note that the moslem faith is accepted by many races.

    Dispute that.

    But here is what the census bureau says. You may choose to argue with them.

    Or you may prefer a more scholarly discussion.

    You know, the astonishing thing is that you can make such a claim with a straight face.

    [ Parent ]

    Al - he's been sucking on... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    Daniel Pipes again, to find out what he's supposed to think he thinks he thinks.

    Self justifying semanticism. Avoidance and denial are much easier and less painful than looking in the mirror. Less work than thinking, too.

    [ Parent ]

    So you slur. (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:33:09 AM EST
    edger - Avoid and repeat all you like, but you can't win this one.

    I say Moslem is a religion and not a race.

    If you want to claim otherwise, please provide proof.

    You can't, so you slur. You're quite good at that.

    Just remember that I'm the guy at the back of the room laughing while you did your hole deeper.

    [ Parent ]

    Jim... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    "Islam" is a religion. "Moslem" is an alternative spelling of "Muslim", a follower of "Islam".

    I think you'l find that most followers of Islam are members of non-white races.

    Semantics, Jim. You express racism and bigotry. Regularly.

    Watch your step.

    [ Parent ]

    "Only (none / 0) (#136)
    by aw on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    mustard isn't a bird", Alice remarked.
    "Right as usual", said the Duchess.
    "What a clear way you have of putting things!"


    [ Parent ]
    More like (none / 0) (#139)
    by Pancho on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 10:22:14 PM EST
    19 out of 19 on 9/11 were Muslims

    [ Parent ]
    Good point there Puncho buddy. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:42:06 AM EST
    And they all dead now. Or so we're told.

    So the war's over now, hunh Puncho?

    Or maybe not. After all, anything is possible if you set your mind to it, right?

    [ Parent ]

    Re: great sense of paranoid passivity going on (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:29:15 PM EST
    "The earth is now home to about 1.4 billion Muslims, many of whom believe that one day you and I will either convert to Islam, live in subjugation to a Muslim caliphate, or be put to death for our unbelief."

    This is an accurate statement of an Islamic article of faith; but so too is this statement:

    "The earth is now home to about 1.3 billion Roman Catholics, many of whom believe that one day you and I will either convert to Catholicism, live in subjugation to Holy Mother Church, or be banished to the depths of hell for all eternity."

    It's accurate to say that most Catholics "believe" this statement, but actually most Catholics, particularly American Catholics, might likely diminish the importance of this statement as "anti-social", or "needlessly divisive", or as a vestige of ancient Catholic dogma no longer relevant.
    ...
    Similarly, most American Muslims would also recognize the historic accuracy of Harris' statement above as a matter of dogma; but I suggest they would likewise deny its importance to the contemporary practice of their Islamic faith. It is an extreme minority (Islamists) like Sayyid Qutb, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Osma bin Laden, who cherry-pick the Kuran to justify the bloody flag of fundamentalism.
    ...
    The CIA estimates that 1% of the U.S. population is Muslim -- about 2.5 million Americans organized in about one thousand mosques across the country. Isn't it remarkable that there has been no orchestrated incidents of Muslim violence in the United States, no mass protests, no act of organized terror perpetrated by Islamic Americans?

    Shouldn't we attribute the fact that there has been no terrorist act committed in the U.S. since 9/11, at least in apart, to the peaceful nature of Islamic American communities and their respect for U.S. law?

    --Link



    [ Parent ]
    Edger - a voice of reason (none / 0) (#78)
    by soccerdad on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:57:14 PM EST
    Happy Turkey day to you

    [ Parent ]
    Not a meat eater... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 09:05:16 PM EST
    I'll probably have some pasta, maybe some sardines, and some fruit. And enjoy the hell out it. No kidding - I like that stuff! And I'll just say thanks for this piece of news:

    ...the weekend's summit in Tehran may prove a prelude to dialogue with the US, which continues to occupy Iraq at exorbitant price and yet without any prospect of "military victory"

    --Talking is a good thing, I think, and long overdue.

    But thank you, Soccerdad... You too. Happy Thanksgiving - have a great one!

    [ Parent ]

    Critical thinking, edger (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:02:31 AM EST
    Uh, you see edger, if you do some critical reading and logical thinking when you come to this sentence:

    , or be banished to the depths of hell for all eternity."

    You will immediately ask:

    What method is currently used in this Catholic banishment. And the answer is, words.

    The next step would be to ask:

    In the events involving Moslem radicals, what is used in their banishment proclamations? And the answer is, beheadings, stonings, car bombs, suicide belts, plane hijackings, etc.

    Given the two, why would anyone speak of catholics when the actions of moslem radicals come up? There is no comparsion, no moral eqivalency. None whatsoever. To be more exact, nada, zero.

    And given that these facts are readily understandable and undeniable, the question becomes:

    Why do some people keep doing it?

    Is it because they have a bias against the US, so they seek to excuse the terrorists' actions?

    Is it because they have a bias against christians, so they seek to excuse the actions of radical moslems?

    Frankly, I don't know. But when I see people calling others "racist" because others have criticized the actions of some members of the Moslem faith, I have to wonder? Since a religion is not a race, and since that fact is also so obviously true, why do they do it?

    Again, I don't know, but I suspect the bias mentioned above is coming into play causing an attack to be launched on those who do not have the bias.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh! You don't have to keep proving it. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    We already know there isn't a point you can't miss, Jim.

    No one really expected you to get that one either.

    [ Parent ]

    Errr...no (4.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 03:34:20 AM EST
    I believe you listed just about every Christian inspired act of terror that's happened recently.

    He left off the most importnant one...the invasion of Iraq.

    Most people act odd, Jarober... (4.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    ...if it makes you nervous the place to start looking is inside yourself.

    The subtext to all of this (3.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Joe Bob on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    People don't trust the security measures too much, do they?

    If Homeland Security knew these imams to be a threat they wouldn't have been on the plane. They went through the TSA screening, metal detector, and x-ray and no one in that process found them to be a threat. Nonetheless, some passengers on the plane freak out and as a result these men are taken away in handcuffs. Oh, and if they had sinister intentions would these imams have not been the least subtle terrorists ever? Praising Allah and making anti-war statements isn't really the best way to slip under the radar.

    As for the taxicab issue: it was determined that the drivers would not be permitted to pick and choose among their fares. (I live in the Twin Cities, and have followed this issue). So what if some of them don't want to carry alcohol in their cab. I've known of Christian fundamentalist property owners who would refuse to rent apartments to homosexuals or unmarried couples if the law allowed them to. It doesn't, so they suck it up and deal, or they find another line of business.


    No (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    The consquences IF security fails is deadly, so no, they don't trust security.

    Do you have a link on the cab situation? Your information is not what I understand.

    [ Parent ]

    Does the handwritten note... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    ...really say the Imams were "cursing US involvement with Saddam before flight."?

    I guess so...

    Witnesses said the men prayed in the terminal and made critical comments about the Iraq war, according to the police report, and a US Airways manager said three of the men had only one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
    from another source...
    Before passengers boarded, one became alarmed by an overheard discussion. "They seemed angry," he wrote in a police statement. "Mentioned `U.S.' and `killing Saddam.' Two men then swore slightly under their breath/mumbled. They spoke Arabic again. The gate called boarding for the flight. The men then chanted `Allah, Allah, Allah.'"
    ...although the imams deny it.

    Ya know, when I was a young kid I had flaming red hair. It seemed every time I was involved in any hijinks, especially at school, I got busted because of my easily-identifiable hair.

    In fact, many times I wasn't even directly involved, but since the teachers could pick me out of the crowd from way across the schoolyard, I was toast even though I didn't do anything wrong.

    Finally my dad talked some sense into me when he told me that since my red hair made me stand out, I'd better be extra careful not to be doing something against the rules and to stay far away from anyone else that was.

    The difference here, of course, is that the imams weren't doing anything against the rules, but, as adults, maybe they should listen to my dad and not do stuff that brings any more negative attention to themselves than they already have.

    Oh yeah, they don't have to pray in an airport...

    "Others accept the fatwa (an opinion by an Islamic legal scholar) that it is acceptable to combine the prayers during travel."

    Just common sense. To me, anyway.

    Its good advice (4.50 / 2) (#20)
    by Peaches on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    but it still doesn't excuse the injustice of you being singled out for having red hair. The point is not whether or not the situation could have been avoided if the Imans had kept a low profile, spoken english, prayed somewhere in private. The point is they were treated unfairly because they were Muslem.  

    [ Parent ]
    Peaches (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    I agree that it was injust.


    [ Parent ]
    Lessons Learnt (4.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:48:12 PM EST
    Ya know, when I was a young kid I had flaming red hair. It seemed every time I was involved in any hijinks, especially at school, I got busted because of my easily-identifiable hair.

    In fact, many times I wasn't even directly involved, but since the teachers could pick me out of the crowd from way across the schoolyard, I was toast even though I didn't do anything wrong.

    Interesting the "lessons" some take away from being treated unfairly for looking different.

    The wise one would learn from this experience not only to be humble by maintaining a low profile, but would also have learned compassion for others who were singled out and oppressed because of an arbitrary characteristic.

    Sounds like you got the abridged version of the lesson. Not too late to learn from your experiences and embrace compassion cause, red hair or not, you are sounding like an apologist for bigotry and racism.

    [ Parent ]

    imams (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by elmeroguero on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    Sensible lefties: it sure seems to me that these guys were just looking to provoke paranoia and got it in spades. I agree that nothing they did violated any rules, that this is a case of human rights, civil rights, and all those other liberal shibboleths. But the whole thing smells of a setup and publicity stunt! It's just way too scripted. Praying in public, angry political remarks, one-way tickets, making odd requests ... I'm sure by now they're lawyered up and filing multi-million-dollar suits. Worse, the knee-jerk defense of these guys just sets up the entire left wing for ridicule on hate radio. Give this one up, guys, and fight on another front...  

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... change the subject, huh? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    they were (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jen M on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    GOING HOME

    The conference was in minesota, they had traveled there and were RETURNING. Why would they have a round trip ticket to come back to minesota?

    Odd requests? He wanted a seatbelt that fit? Ooooh, scary. Definately part of a prescripted plot.

    Praying in public, now THERE is a crime. How disgusting can you get.

    And if it was scripted,

    WHY DID US AIRWAYS REACT EXACTLY AS A RACISTS WOULD?

    unless...

    [ Parent ]

    Please (none / 0) (#89)
    by Al on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 01:13:55 AM EST
    don't feed the troll.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh.My.God. Oh, yes, by all means... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    ...these people just have to learn to be tolerant of the bigoted, xenophobic, fear-mongers everywhere who refuse to be tolerant of them or their peaceful religion

    Oh, fer sure, that makes everything alright. We should all always yield to bullies of every stripe for any reason or any offense, real, imagined, or manufactured out of whole cloth.

    Yep, that's becoming the 'Murkin Way. And what a fine thing to teach to all the little chirrin'.

    [ Parent ]

    BA (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    ...these people just have to learn to be tolerant of the bigoted, xenophobic, fear-mongers everywhere who refuse to be tolerant of them or their peaceful religion

    I'd phrase it as using one's own common sense, but you go right ahead and be offended...that's the 'Murkin way.

    [ Parent ]

    Who's offended? If I got offended... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    ...every time someone disagreed with me I would remain in a constant state of being offended.

    What I DO find offensive is that in bush's "Murka" people are no longer accorded their constitutional rights and many, many people defend that and don't see anything wrong with it even though it was previously inimical to the true "American" way of life.

    If you are not offended by the steady erosion of our rights, hey, live in peace, and, as they say, "may the chains of your masters bear lightly upon you."

    I prefer the America in which I grew up, not this now pale shadow of what America used to be.

    [ Parent ]

    BA (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    What I DO find offensive is that in bush's "Murka" people are no longer accorded their constitutional rights and many, many people defend that and don't see anything wrong with it

    Is this comment directed at me, or some phantom commenter? Because I'm pretty sure didn't say anything of the kind...

    Oh yeah, OT probably, but the Dems control both houses of congress so how do you know this incident's not their fault instead of Bush's? And, if I were a betting man, the Dems'll gain the WH as well in '08, d'ya think incidences like this will just disappear, or is your Bush slam just venting?

    [ Parent ]

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    Oh yeah, OT probably, but the Dems control both houses of congress so how do you know this incident's not their fault instead of Bush's?

    Wow, jumping the gun a bit here. Although, thanks for the heads up as to what we can expect from the right wingers after January 3, 2007, when the new congress takes over.

    The war, the deficit, the fear, the injustice....all because the dems are running things.

    Hahahahahah.

    [ Parent ]

    Aw, c'mon, don't look for offense... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    ...where now was intended.

    And the dems don't take over congress until Jan 4, 2007.

    And to answer your query, "...or is your Bush slam just venting? ", nothing I say about or referring to bush is just mere "venting."

    They are my honest opinions of the worst president in American history and the worst world leader since Ghengis Khan.

    The statement you quote is simply my opinion for which I neither seek, desire, nor would I accept anyone's permission to state or any assertions that it is an opinion to which I am not entitled.

    Your statement here though does tend to reinforce what I have said in other posts here today that people, in general (not you specifically) are all too ready and all too quick to find or take offense where none was intended. That's just the level public debate has sunk to in this country after decades of rethuglicans demonizing anyone who disagrees with them and labels them traitors or worse.

    Your opinion is just that, your opinion, and while it may make for interesting reading, or not, it is not anything for me to get upset about just because it is not my opinion.

    Maybe you shouldn't look so hard for things not there?

    [ Parent ]

    Also, the statement you quote was... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    ...ON THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION, so unless you were one of the Imams on that flight I fail to see how that could be construed as criticism of you personally.

    [ Parent ]
    BA (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:24:19 PM EST
    You are getting tiring. I construed nothing as it is plain to see.

    I asked you to clarify whether your comment was directed at me or some phantom commenter, and, as further point of clarification, in case it was needed, I indicated that I had said nothing of what you had commented on.

    As your comment was a direct reply to one of my comments - you know, 'cuz you clicked on the "Reply to this" button under my comment - I think requesting clarification of your comment is quite acceptable.

    The word "offended" has seemed to strike quite  a nerve in you. I wonder why..

    [ Parent ]

    Now you're just getting silly... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    ...and still looking for offense where none was intended. You are incapable of "strik[ing] a nerve", for I take no offense at anything you say.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps... (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jarober on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:32:52 PM EST
    Perhaps you could consider why people might be nervous about Muslims praying and gesticulating in public.  Perhaps it's the frequent incidents of violence around the world that accompany such piety?  You can say what you want, but there are very, very few terrorists who kill in the name of Christ.  Most Muslims are not terrorists, but - the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.  

    Until Muslims accept that fact and start vocally disowning the violence, they can expect this kind of reaction from the average person.  

    And never mind Iraq and American "incitement" of Muslims.  Before you go that route, you can explain the thousands of non-Muslim dead in southern Thailand, killed by Islamic radicals over the last few years.  

    Bottom line - it may not be fair to be nervous around Muslims, but it makes perfect sense to be nervous.

    Never heard of the Spanish Inquisition... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    ...eh? Or handing out smallpox-infected blankets to the local populations of South America? The genocide of the American Indian? The Crusades through the Middle East? And they were not called terrorists, they were called "God fearing men and Christians".

    I would think a review of history, even a cursory one, would show that more people have died in the name of Christ than for any other single reason in history. And it's too late for them to disavow the violence.

    And why? Religious bigotry and xenophobia and an overwhelming conviction that the Christian god is the only god.

    Bottom line-It may not be fair to be nervous around Christians, but it makes perfect sense to be nervous.

    [ Parent ]

    Here and Now (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    Bill .... That has nothing to do with here and now.

    Do you actually believe the Islamic terrorists are going for revenge for whatever it is you think we did to the indians???

    Come on Bill. Try some logic.

    It aint about the 7th century. It's about here and now.

    [ Parent ]

    Very few terrorists kill in the name of Christ??? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    How many people have been killed by Christians since biblical times?

    Christian extremist terrorism

    • October 2, 2004 - Christian terrorist group kills 44 Hindus, wounds 118 in Northeast India.

    • January 16, 1997 - Christian Identity terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph bombs a gay nightclub.

    • July 27, 1996 - Christian Identity terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph bombs Centennial Olympic Park. Kills 1, wounds 111.

    • 1983 - Posse Comitatus militia member Gordon Kahl kills two Federal marshals in North Dakota. Three others are wounded.

    • 1969-2001 - over 3000 people are killed in Ireland and the United Kingdom as a result of bombings and other violent acts between the predominently Roman Catholic Irish nationalists on one side, and the predominently Protestant Unionists and secular British Crown forces on the other. More than 1800 of those killed in "The Troubles" are civilians, many the victims of sectarian attacks.

    • 1940s - Terrorist organization Christian Identity is formed on the West Coast of the United States. Followers believe Armageddon will take place as a race war between Aryans, the "pure" people, against Jews, Muslims, and non-whites.

    In the United States, arson, firebombing and vandalism of abortion clinics, along with harassment of clinic employees and patrons have been cited as examples of terror tactics employed by anti-abortion extremists. Occasionally the perpetrators have been self-proclaimed Christians.

    Eric Rudolph, for example, engaged in terrorist activities closely associated with Christian terrorism, such as the targeting of abortion clinics and the bombing of a gay nightclub; also, Rudolph had been suspected to be associated with the Christian Identity organization. While Rudolph has himself denied such associations, writing that he "prefers Nietzsche to the Bible", he has clearly said "I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one."

    Many abortion opponents attempt to blame these acts of violence on individuals who have little regard for human life and groups which they view are separate from the pro-life movement or any Christian church.

    Christian groups with terrorist cells:

    • Christian Identity movement
    • Freedomites (also Svobodniki or Sons of Freedom, Canada, 1902-present)
    • Army of God right wing terrorist group


    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (4.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Al on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 01:24:41 AM EST
    Don't forget also that the bloodiest Latin American dictators have been devout Catholics, and have counted on the support of the Catholic hierarchy.

    [ Parent ]
    Bottom Line? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    There will aways be people like some commenters here who are determined that somehow, someway, they will keep the WOT (war on thinking) going no matter how much endless repetition they have to engage in.

    They're on a "mission from god", after all, to broadcast their fearmongering loud and clear throughout the world. Just like Al Qaeda:

    The Al Qaeda Clubhouse: Members lacking

    The June 30 issue of Newsweek carried a story titled "The Myth of Al Qaeda" by Michael Hirsh, which argues that the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and his followers has been long overestimated by the United States. Hirsh argues that there is substantial evidence that "up to 9/11, Al Qaeda could barely hold its act together, that it was a failing group, hounded from every country it tried to roost in (except for the equally lunatic Taliban-run Afghanistan) . . . This is the reality of the group that the Bush Administration has said would engage us in a `long war' not unlike the Cold War--the group that has led to the transformation of U.S. foreign policy and America's image in the world."
    ...
    Documents discovered by the joint task force, Cloonan said, showed that Al Qaeda had 72 members when it was founded in 1989. Twelve years later, the task force got its hands on an updated membership list after a CIA Predator destroyed a building near Kabul during the American invasion of Afghanistan. The membership list was discovered in the rubble, along with dozens of casualties, including Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's closest aides. It showed that bin Laden had a grand total of precisely 198 sworn loyalists.
    ...
    Terrorism is a real threat, but "Al Qaeda" is less of an organization than it is an impulse. And while bin Laden isn't the all-powerful terrorist mastermind he's often portrayed to be, the war in Iraq, Guantánamo, extraordinary renditions, and other Bush Administration brainstorms have ensured that his message is broadcast loud and clear throughout the world.


    [ Parent ]
    What can we do about Islamic Terrorism? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    There are crazy fringe fanatics in every society. Al Qaeda is probably ... not anywhere the size of the group that supports bush's hegemonic fanaticism. There are no hordes of billions of insane Islamic killers out there about to wash over us in a tidal wave of massacre.

    Maintaining some  perspective is important here, I think. There is a fringe group of fanatics, called Al Qaeda. That is what we are dealing with.

    So, what are some things we as a society can do about them? How can we stop them and live peacefully with Islamic countries?

    --Link



    [ Parent ]
    While you're eating turkey... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:45:05 PM EST
    Here is another short video... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    ...that is not so pleasant. It is about a video game designed for teaching christian children to kill anyone who will not convert to christianity while shouting "praise the lord". Sound eerily familiar?

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    sad (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    And how many have been killed?

    Sad, edger. Very sad.

    [ Parent ]

    How Many? (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 03:25:58 AM EST
    How many people have died in Iraq because George W. Bush was told by God to go invade the country?

    And all the voices in your head tell you to support that kind of good, wholesome Christian violence.

    [ Parent ]

    He could have left. (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    Ernesto - Leaving aside your nutso comments about Bush speaking with God... and the plan fact that his  regime has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people... and the fact that he did invade Kuwait, again kill tens of thousands, with the resulting deaths of his own people when we entered the war to stop his invasion..

    The simple fact is that all Saddam had to do was resign, take the money, his family and friends and find a nice country to retire to. I am sure France would have welcomed him.

    Instead he took some awfully bad advice and decided that he would fight, believeing, I am sure, that the UN would force a political solution.

    Now, do you understand that Saddam has a bit to do (sarcasm alert!)with the dead and dying??

    [ Parent ]

    xxxx (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    Yeah, I know, 9/11 was shot in Hollywood.

    [ Parent ]
    Bravo, Edger. Quite a list there... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    ...that you have compiled. I took the lazy route and just cited the EASY historical comparisons. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly "Christians" find fault with another's religion without any consideration of their own history that makes Muslims look amateurish by comparison.

    Even now so-called Christian leaders call for political assassinations, genocide, and condemnation of other religions as being a thing of Satan.

    [ Parent ]

    I took the EASY route too... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    I just googled "christianity kills".

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    Bill - No one is defending Christians for their wrongs. What they are doing is condeming Moslem radicals for their CURRENT AND MODERN KILLING OF TENS, IF NOT HUNDREDS, OF THOUSANDS.

    You should understand that anyone can see your attemps to justify the wrongs of the Moslems by continually calling out the post-modern problems of some of the christian faith.

    Wanna read about it? Try "A World Lit Only By Fire," by William Manchester and you will find enough sins by Popes, Bishops, etc., to last a life time.

    However, none of these have a thing to do with the current batch of radical Islamic radicals and terrorists who are doing very evil things right now.

    So, why do you do this??

    [ Parent ]

    Killers (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:47:20 PM EST
    edger - That's just BS. The current problem isn't christians 40 years ago, but Moslems radicals this morning.

    Could you please quit excusing these killers and start demanding that the religion reform itself?

    Gesh.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem is people like ppj (4.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Sailor on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    The current problem isn't christians 40 years ago, but Moslems radicals this morning.
    The problem wasn't the muslims, the problem is the attitude that folks like ppj have in justifying demonizing other folks religious practices.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: The problem is people like ppj (3.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kitt on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:42:16 PM EST
    Exactly, Sailor.

    [ Parent ]
    Kit (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    Kit - If condeming so-called religous leaders for calling for the death of thousands of "non-believers," not to even mention the "non-Suni" or the "non-Shia" is bad, color me bad.

    And damn proud to be so.

    [ Parent ]

    "non-Suni" /"non-Shia" ?? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kitt on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    This is what I was agreeing with Sailor about:
    The problem wasn't the muslims, the problem is the attitude that folks like ppj have in justifying demonizing other folks religious practices.

    Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about here:

    If condeming so-called religous leaders for calling for the death of thousands of "non-believers," not to even mention the "non-Suni" or the "non-Shia" is bad, color me bad.


    [ Parent ]
    Sailor makes things up (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    I see that you haven't stopped making things up and claiming others say them.

    It isn't the practice of their religion, but rather the actions of some of their religious leaders, and the resulting deaths, that is the problem.

    But you know that. You just want to disagreeable.

    [ Parent ]

    It's just another one of those... (3.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 12:40:41 AM EST
    ...no one expected you to get it situations, Jim.

    [ Parent ]
    And, just Perhaps, this is not true (4.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Peaches on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    Most Terrorists are not Muslems. Terrorism comes in many forms and really is not that big of a threat.

    7. There is no special link between Islam and terrorism. Most major religions have produced some form of terrorism, and many terrorist groups have professed atheism. If there is a particular tenacity in Islamist forms of terrorism today, this is a product not of Islamic scripture but of the current historical circumstance that many Muslims live in places of intense political conflict. Contemporary Islamist movements that resort to terrorism are, however, often strengthened in their appeal by the fact that they want to link a faith-based activism, intended to "transform" society, with ethnic and nationalist causes. Most other terrorist groups have not combined their intentions in this way. For instance, the IRA does not have "transformational" aims, as Richardson puts it, but rather territorial ones.


    [ Parent ]
    Peaches (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    You know what's interesting to me is that many things don't pose much of a threat, but people still get worked up about them anyway.

    Since last year, for some unknown reason, my wife is now really scared when a plane she's on is landing. Obviously there's statistically (I know you love them) little threat of crashing, but she still gets nervous.

    I have never had an insurance claim against my biz in 13 years, yet I carry a whole pile of liability ins.

    I've never gotten into a accident nor have I been stopped by LE while driving after drinking, but I do limit myself to one beer or wine when I'm driving. Ok, maybe two in certain circumstances.

    Point is, at present, certain numbnuts who happen to be some flavor of Islam, are involved in activities that cause distrust, at least.

    Too bad the imams didn't consider their pre-flight wait a good opportunity to talk to some of their fellow passengers and spread a little Islamic goodwill, like the local biker "gang" took it upon themselves to do

    [ Parent ]

    Irrational fears (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Peaches on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    There is a desire for security that probably overpowers our desires for freedom. You know, coming from me, I think this desire can be easily manipulated by forces desiring power or even absolute power. Hitler understood this and he used fear to rally the German population to fascist causes. Fear of Jews and Mongrels and communists as well.

    Luckily for us FDR understood this as well. He told the American people "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." It might be the most profound quote by an American president ever. Of Course, as soon as FDR died, along comes Truman telling us we must fight the communists or we will be destroyed. Now it is the terrorists.

    I agree with your sentiments about the imans-to the extent that they could have made a conscious effort to avoid this confrontation. But, it still does not make it right. The question is should they have to live the rest of their lives (in AMerica) making sure the people around them feel comfortable, just because their skin is darker and they pray to a different God than some others do. It may be a reality, but it is a reality that Americans who really believe in American freedom and eqality (that we are all created equal deal) should stand up in protest of and try to achieve change.

    You also do not know all of the muslems that were spreading Islamic good will around the world that day. And, these Imans may have been too busy having a discussion in their language amongst friends to notice their fellow passengers around them. I know I am not one to strike up conversations with strangers when I am amongst friends, I don't expect most other people are either.

    I think you are being way to hard on the Imans and blaming them for the treatment they recieved. Even if they knew what they were doing, and this was done to generate publicity (which no one has given any evidence that it was), they still have brought light to the rest of us that we are still a nation that is a long way from achieving a country where we treat everyone fairly regardless of race, gender, creed, or religion.

    [ Parent ]

    Peaches (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    I think you are being way to hard on the Imans and blaming them for the treatment they recieved.

    I may be being too hard, and I think some are being too hard on the passengers that were concerned about the imams. Not everyone can spend all day on TL to get "enlightened."

    Regardless, I think, considering all that's going on in this world, the imams should have been a little more cognizant of their actions and what possible responses they might get.

    Yup, it's not fair that they might have to act like my local biker guys and proactively allay other's (reasonable or not) concerns, but common sense says sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do.

    Hopefully in the future, due to the impact of this incident, more of the general public will have fewer concerns about flying imams, and more imams will accept that they might should do a little more outreach...like when they're waiting to board a plane.

    [ Parent ]

    Impossible (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 03:29:17 AM EST
    You cannot, I repeat cannot be too hard on uptight racist assh0les...EVER.

    [ Parent ]
    Peaches (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    I think you are being way to hard on the Imans and blaming them for the treatment they recieved.

    I may be being too hard, and I think some are being too hard on the passengers that were concerned about the imams. Not everyone can spend all day on TL to get "enlightened."

    Regardless, I think, considering all that's going on in this world, the imams should have been a little more cognizant of their actions and what possible responses they might get.

    Yup, it's not fair that they might have to act like my local biker guys and proactively allay other's (reasonable or not) concerns, but common sense says sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do.

    Hopefully in the future, due to the impact of this incident, more of the general public will have fewer concerns a