These People Make my Head Hurt

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/07...ex.html?hpt=T2

Quote:

---

(CNN) -- An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair -- both clad in Islamic attire.

The incident occurred Friday on an Atlanta Southeast Airlines flight from Tennessee to North Carolina and it involved Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul were wearing traditional Muslim dress, CNN affiliate WCNC reported.

The two -- who hold high religious positions in the Muslim community -- were headed to North Carolina for a conference on prejudice against Muslims, or Islamaphobia. The meeting is sponsored by the North American Imams Federation.

Rahman, who is a professor at the University of Memphis, told the affiliate that the incident reminded him of the prejudice Rosa Parks faced during the civil rights movement.

"That history I found today in that plane, and it shouldn't happen with any other person," he said.

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, which operated the flight, said the incident is under investigation, and apologized "for any inconvenience that this may have caused."

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the civil rights group Council on American-Islamic Relations, told CNN the two men contacted his office and said they were told that passengers were uncomfortable with them on the flight.

"They went through security, even went through secondary security, and got on the plane, were taxiing out," he said.

But then, they were taxied back, Hooper said.

"TSA came on and pulled them off and said the pilot was refusing to fly with them because passengers were uncomfortable with them," Hooper said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.

Hooper said officials re-screened them and found they were no threat.

While officials tried to get the men back on the plane, "the pilot absolutely refused and ultimately took off," Hooper said.

The airlines did not say why the two men were taken off the flight, but said they were given the opportunity to fly on a different flight.

"Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 5452 from Memphis to Charlotte returned to the gate to allow for additional screening of a passenger and the passenger's companion," the statement said. "We take security and safety very seriously, and the event is currently under investigation.

---

People are so terrible sometimes.

Oh my. They missed a flight because they decided to dress in full, traditional Muslim garb on an airplane a couple of days after Osama Bin Laden was killed and people got spooked. That's definitely some Rosa Parks **** right there.

Somehow I get the feeling these guys were looking for a story to tell at their conference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Oh my. They missed a flight. That's definitely some Rosa Parks **** right there.

---

Lol? Them missing the flight wasn't the reason for the Rosa Parks comment. Them being kicked off a plane for no reason other than people were uncomfortable around them, was the reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Lol? Them missing the flight wasn't the reason for the Rosa Parks comment. Them being kicked off a plane for no reason other than people were uncomfortable around them, was the reason.

---

It would have been hilarious if the pilot would have flown them back to the middle east :laugh4:

But that would have been *ahum* islamophobic.

Come on, it is just pieces of clothing...
No meaning whatsoever, I was told for the Burka. They are free to wear what they what and to travel. USA is the land of the free isn’t it?
By the way, I do not remember that the Curran has any description of clothing for the Believers but I can be mistaken in this field…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Lol? Them missing the flight wasn't the reason for the Rosa Parks comment. Them being kicked off a plane for no reason other than people were uncomfortable around them, was the reason.

---

Sensitivity and understanding go both ways. These people want to pretend like we don't live in a world where traditionalist Muslims fly planes into buildings on occasion. Now of course, if you sat down and thought about it, the guys who stand out the most as being Muslim probably aren't going to be your terrorists, but it still makes people uncomfortable. It's not racism or any anti-Islamic crap; it’s just how the current reality has conditioned them to respond - especially in the days after we killed the hijacker-in-chief.

An analogy. I love guns and would never even consider shooting someone in anger, and I'll stand up to defend my right to own them anytime and anywhere, but I wouldn't where a t-shirt with an Glock on it to a game at Virginia Tech - or to a Gabby Giffords speech. It sucks that a few fanatics have put a taint on one of my favorite interests, but that's life. It's all about discretion.

These people could have put on some jeans and a t-shirt and instead chose to be deliberately provocative in the setting they put themselves in. The result? They got bumped from a flight, profusely apologized to, and were given the next flight out. Comparing themselves to Rosa Parks is the height of arrogance and disrespect.

Quote:

---

Sensitivity and understanding go both ways. These people want to pretend like we don't live in a world where traditionalist Muslims fly planes into buildings on occasion.

---

You make it sound like it's a hobby.

"Huh well, I already made love to this goat today, beat my four wives around, and it's only four PM. What should I do? Aha, I shall fly an airplane into a building!"

Quote:

---

Now of course, if you sat down and thought about it, the guys who stand out the most as being Muslim probably aren't going to be your terrorists, but it still makes people uncomfortable. It's not racism or any anti-Islamic crap; it’s just how the current reality has conditioned them to respond - especially in the days after we killed the hijacker-in-chief.

---

No, it pretty much is discrimination. It suggests a correlation between people who wear Muslim garb and terrorism. And that's a bit silly.

Quote:

---

It would have been hilarious if the pilot would have flown them back to the middle east :laugh4:

---

Sorry, you're just no ACIN.

Pff...

I can't believe these two were given free tickets for a later plane. So two Imams are headed to a conference on prejudice against Muslims, and go out of their way to provoke a reaction. What a circus. Like two priests suspiciously hanging around a kindergarten all day long a few days after another scandal breaks out, just so they can cry discrimination at their conference. The cheek of it all!

I hope somebody is checking to see of their citizenship can be revoked. I've had it up to here with these clowns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Come on, it is just pieces of clothing...
No meaning whatsoever, I was told for the Burka. They are free to wear what they what and to travel.

---

:wink:

Sounds like the pilot should be looking for a new job. They ran them three times through security. What's security there for if not to determine whether someone is a threat. There was no indication of any danger from the two. Yet another case of fear and security concerns trumping freedom. I do not like this trend.

Ajax

people are morons...

these guys went though security...if the other people on the plane do not believe security did it's job and still feel threatened then they should be the ones to leave the plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Sounds like the pilot should be looking for a new job. They ran them three times through security. What's security there for if not to determine whether someone is a threat. There was no indication of any danger from the two. Yet another case of fear and security concerns trumping freedom. I do not like this trend.

Ajax

---

The security threat was the unrest amongst the passengers.

Also, coming not 24 hours after the solemn remembrance activities on Ground Zero, the pilot's thoughts may also have been closer to those of his colleagues that were butchered with box knifes than with two men who wear dresses on a plane just when AQ announced retaliatory terrorist acts.


I dislike discrimination of Muslims simply for being Muslim. I do not mind discrimination of two boys who insist on wearing matching trenchcoats to school one day after a high-profile remembrance of the Columbine High School massacre.

It has been assumed that these people would normally not use this sort of attire when taking airliners. Please provide sources for this.

Its just stupid to use that kind of attire within a week of bin ladens death. Is it right that they have been persecuted for this stuff? No. But it wasn't really very logical haha.

Quote:

---

No, it pretty much is discrimination. It suggests a correlation between people who wear Muslim garb and terrorism. And that's a bit silly.

---

It suggests a correlation between traditionalist Muslims and terrorism in the minds of many Americans, which isn't quite so silly.

I do not understand why they would want to wear such clothing in the current elevated risk environment. It isn't religiously mandated, so why make the other passengers uncomfortable?

The fact that they were on their way to a conference on discrimination makes the entire event highly suspicious. "Hey Mohamed, let's dress like the people everyone's watching on the news today and see just how tolerant this society really is."

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...-ra-multan.jpg

I bet they're rock stars at the convention, heroes in their victimhood much like Rosa Parks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

It has been assumed that these people would normally not use this sort of attire when taking airliners. Please provide sources for this.

---

Who assumed that? Everyone is obliged to alter their behavior to a certain extent when traveling by air these days. There are a lot of things I wear in everyday life that I might not choose to wear when getting on an airplane, like shoes with laces. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Pff...

I can't believe these two were given free tickets for a later plane. So two Imams are headed to a conference on prejudice against Muslims, and go out of their way to provoke a reaction. What a circus. Like two priests suspiciously hanging around a kindergarten all day long a few days after another scandal breaks out, just so they can cry discrimination at their conference. The cheek of it all!

I hope somebody is checking to see of their citizenship can be revoked. I've had it up to here with these clowns.

---

I hope this is just you trying to be controversial by taking the unpopular position, Louis!

Your examples don't work because they are examples of people going out of their way to cause offense. Which is completely different to a traditionalist Muslim just wearing his everyday clothes. Trying to go about his daily business, only to get kicked off a plane because he happens to come from the same culture and accompanying dress sense of one guy who happens to be a well-known terrorist?

Does this mean at the height of the IRA bombing campaing, an Irishman travelling in the UK should have to fake an English accent since obviously his Irish accent might lead people into thinking he has planted a bomb somewhere?

Or when the FLQ caused a bit of a craze, should Francophone Quebecers have started talking English in public, since they might scare the English-speakers into thinking they are terrorists?

Okay so two guys are kicked off a plane, having gone through all relevant security checks, because passengers are scared? The most distressing thing is what that implies for how deeply ingrained racial profiling is amongst members of the public.

I'm scared of whoever first raised that complaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwr

I hope this is just you trying to be controversial by taking the unpopular position, Louis!

---

It is the 'cleric' wut dun it. I can't help myself anymore than a bull can help himself charging a red waving cloth. :shame:

Two average guys of Middle Eastern heritage - I'd have said this was a silly paranoid-racist thing to do.
Two clerics in dresses with long beards, well, then I'm inclined to say these two might have shown better judgement.



Me I'm a nudist. In fact, I am typing this post NAKED RIGHT NOW.

But when boarding a plane, I shave and take my monthly bath and put on appropriate attire. Other guys like to wear miniskirts with wigs and Lady Gaga make-up. Fine. But don't demand that your own private dresscode is appropriate everywhere, at all times.

Travelling by air in America is a tense affair. One can try to make some effort to your fellow passengers and crew to not to make it more tense than it already is. Certainly directly after the president commemorated 9-11 at ground zero and terror alert is high.

Much better than a show of force, or a provocation, or poorly timed complaints about safety measures, or going out of your way to create a buzz the day before your Islamophobia congress. I still wonder how hard these two tried to be discriminated against. How did they manage to get the plane to turn around long after everybody had boarded already?

They were there to make a political statement and they did so.

Rahman is an adjunct professor at U Memphis, Zaghloul is an accomplished research/cancer physician. It is exceedingly unlikely that either was unaware of the possibility that they would generate a reaction.

They're point is that Americans discriminate against muslims who look/act like traditional muslims. They are, at least partly, correct. This is silly of course -- none of the 9-11 hijackers were dressed in muslim garb, as that would be poor tradecraft -- but there it is.

They will, no doubt, enjoy their 15 minutes. Who knows, this may even get Rahman a tenure track slot.

Provocation succeeded pity is in, it's like the 9/11 mosque. I cannot buildz?

Some time ago another set of Imams boarded an internal US flight, flying from, not to, a congress:

Six imams were kicked off a US Airways flight last week in Minneapolis for committing several acts of suspicious behavior, not just because they said their evening prayers before boarding the plane, a police report shows, contradicting earlier media reports.

US Airways manager Robby Taylor Davis told police three of the six imams had one-way only tickets and only one passenger checked luggage. He also said in the police report that most of the six requested seat-belt extensions typically used by obese people despite being thin.
Also, a passenger on the plane who speaks Arabic heard the group mention Saddam Hussein and criticize the United States' involvement in Iraq. The passenger, whose named was redacted from the police report, said he saw two of the men take seats in the front of the plane, two take seats in the middle, and two more in the back.


Minneapolis police, along with U.S. Federal Air Marshals, decided the collective behavior of the group was suspicious enough to detain the men and question them.

Earlier reports only said the group had been seen praying loudly before the flight, and the group was removed after a passenger passed a note to a flight attendant bringing attention to the group, and did not include details on the other suspicious behavior of the imams.
The imams, who were returning from a religious conference, were detained and questioned before being released shortly thereafter.
"Pauline," a passenger on the flight who didn't want to give her real name for fear of her safety, said she thought the it was a stunt to garner media attention.
"They were so poised and ready to go to the press. By the time I arrived home from the airport ... they were already announcing on the news that they were being discriminated against," Pauline said on FOX News' Hannity and Colmes.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...#ixzz1Lja3Nu1R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Okay so two guys are kicked off a plane, having gone through all relevant security checks, because passengers are scared? The most distressing thing is what that implies for how deeply ingrained racial profiling is amongst members of the public.

I'm scared of whoever first raised that complaint.

---

This is what the government wants:

Quote:

---

Within minutes of a news conference at ground zero where authorities preached calm and vigilance after the killing of Osama bin Laden, the alarming 911 call came in.

The caller in Times Square on Monday afternoon reported that a suspicious package was sitting on the sidewalk at West 43rd Street and Eighth Avenue — a mere two blocks from where admitted terrorist Faisal Shahzad had failed in his frightening attempt to blow up a car bomb almost exactly a year earlier.

Unlike the Shahzad case, the scare fizzled out in a more familiar way: The New York Police Department patrol officers who swarmed the area quickly determined the package was a bag of garbage.
...
The volume of calls means more work for the NYPD, but Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the message stays the same: Keep them coming.

"We anticipate that with increased public vigilance comes an increase in false alarms for suspicious packages," Kelly said at the Monday news conference. "This typically happens at times of heightened awareness. But we don't want to discourage the public. If you see something, say something."

---

Reasonable approaches are, of course, ignored:

Quote:

---

We've opened up a new front on the war on terror. It's an attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected. It's a war on different. If you act different, you might find yourself investigated, questioned and even arrested -- even if you did nothing wrong, and had no intention of doing anything wrong.
The problem is a combination of citizen informants and a CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats.
...
Watch how it happens. Someone sees something, so he says something. The person he says it to -- a policeman, a security guard, a flight attendant -- now faces a choice: ignore or escalate. Even though he may believe that it's a false alarm, it's not in his best interests to dismiss the threat. If he's wrong, it'll cost him his career. But if he escalates, he'll be praised for "doing his job" and the cost will be borne by others. So he escalates. And the person he escalates to also escalates, in a series of CYA decisions. And before we're done, innocent people have been arrested, airports have been evacuated, and hundreds of police hours have been wasted.
This story has been repeated endlessly, both in the United States and in other countries. Someone -- these are all real -- notices a funny smell, or some white powder, or two people passing an envelope, or a dark-skinned man leaving boxes at the curb, or a cell phone in an airplane seat. The police cordon off the area, make arrests and/or evacuate airplanes, and in the end the cause of the alarm is revealed as a pot of Thai chili sauce, or flour, or a utility bill, or an English professor recycling or a cell phone in an airplane seat.
Of course, by then it's too late for the authorities to admit that they made a mistake and overreacted, that a sane voice of reason at some level should have prevailed. What follows is the parade of police and elected officials praising each other for doing a great job, and prosecuting the poor victim -- the person who was different in the first place -- for having the temerity to try to trick them.

---

CR

What I really don’t understand is why they insist in wearing these clothes, as there is no signification whatsoever. Just cloths, it is not imposed/required by the Curran, not sacred, not holly, nothing like e.g. the various clothing on the Catholic Church.

Or, perhaps, may be, there is a signification. Perhaps when people wear “afghan” fashion clothes, as the Burka, is means something else than religious beliefs.

As far as I know, the biggest Muslim Country is Indonesia.
Why do these Imams don’t wear Indonesian Clothes?

A better question is why the **** does it matter what other Muslims wear and what the Koran says they should wear. We are supposed to be a free country and they are supposed to be able to live normal lives wearing what they like.

Barring nudity of course - won't someobody please think of the children!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Sensitivity and understanding go both ways. These people want to pretend like we don't live in a world where traditionalist Muslims fly planes into buildings on occasion. Now of course, if you sat down and thought about it, the guys who stand out the most as being Muslim probably aren't going to be your terrorists, but it still makes people uncomfortable. It's not racism or any anti-Islamic crap; it’s just how the current reality has conditioned them to respond - especially in the days after we killed the hijacker-in-chief.

An analogy. I love guns and would never even consider shooting someone in anger, and I'll stand up to defend my right to own them anytime and anywhere, but I wouldn't where a t-shirt with an Glock on it to a game at Virginia Tech - or to a Gabby Giffords speech. It sucks that a few fanatics have put a taint on one of my favorite interests, but that's life. It's all about discretion.

These people could have put on some jeans and a t-shirt and instead chose to be deliberately provocative in the setting they put themselves in. The result? They got bumped from a flight, profusely apologized to, and were given the next flight out. Comparing themselves to Rosa Parks is the height of arrogance and disrespect.

---

What a bunch of nonsense. As long as it conforms with law of the land, people should be free to wear whatever they want to on airline without discrimination. You act as though people in tradiational islamic attire are highjacking planes daily and the only way to stop them is by profiling.

Quote:

---

These people want to pretend like we don't live in a world where traditionalist Muslims fly planes into buildings on occasion. Now of course, if you sat down and thought about it, the guys who stand out the most as being Muslim probably aren't going to be your terrorists, but it still makes people uncomfortable. It's not racism or any anti-Islamic crap; it’s just how the current reality has conditioned them to respond - especially in the days after we killed the hijacker-in-chief.

---

Yes it is racism and anti-islamic crap. That is the very essence of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

But when boarding a plane, I shave and take my monthly bath and put on appropriate attire. Other guys like to wear miniskirts with wigs and Lady Gaga make-up. Fine. But don't demand that your own private dresscode is appropriate everywhere, at all times.

Travelling by air in America is a tense affair. One can try to make some effort to your fellow passengers and crew to not to make it more tense than it already is. Certainly directly after the president commemorated 9-11 at ground zero and terror alert is high.

---

More or less my view. i adapt my life to make it easier for airport security, and by extension myself, and it isn't unreasonable to expect the same from others.

Not just tense, it is another universe post 911.
Pre 911 there was always the potential of a hijacking until the SAS made it unpopular, you sat quietly in your seat without making a fuss until the negotiators succeeded or the flash-bangs went of, hoping all the while that you wouldn't be the 1 in a 100 who selected to be made an example of.
Post 911 it does not matter what level of personal danger you face, or bring down upon other innocent passengers, if 'beardy' hijackers pop-up you have one choice and one chance; go utterly bat-p00p crazy and don't stop until your dead or you're drenched in his blood and you've choked the life out of him with his own entrails!
The alternative is watching mute as you and a hundred other people fly into a skyscraper to the cries of "allah ahkbar!"

That 'heightened' tension justifies concessions........... from everyone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Provocation succeeded pity is in, it's like the 9/11 mosque. I cannot buildz?

---

This, they could have dressed like normal people and never have been kicked out.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

normal people

---

Quality.

The absolute absurdity of all of this is that while they remove the imams from the plane for dressing in traditional garb, the actual extremist with the bomb is sitting on the plane dressed as a college frat boy.

Please cite me with one example where a terrorist hijacked a plane while dressed in traditional garb...

All of these arguments amount to the justification of racism, and have nothing to do with security. The fact that the ignorant public have associated this dress with extremists is not something that should be indulged at the expense of other's rights. These men have the right to dress in the manner of their choosing. The fact that these were religious leaders makes it all the more glaring. While some priests may choose not to wear their collar at times, many others will wear it under all conditions. It is their right to do so, and while it may result in some distasteful or ignorant comments being slung at them, it should not result in violence or discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I dislike discrimination of Muslims simply for being Muslim. I do not mind discrimination of two boys who insist on wearing matching trenchcoats to school one day after a high-profile remembrance of the Columbine High School massacre.

---

While I have a moticum of sympathy for such a position your anaolgy is flawed

A better one would be a priest showing up at a daycare

While I agree that these men were fishing, the public certainly took it hook, line, and sinker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

While I have a moticum of sympathy for such a position your anaolgy is flawed

A better one would be a priest showing up at a daycare

---

Tsk...for how long have we known each other now?

You need to get up pretty early in the morning to get in the child-molesting priest reference before me. I needed only eight posts this thread.

I don't see why on earth my personal freedoms should be restricted by the hysteria of the paranoid.

Airprt "security" should be confined to the loonie bin where belongs. There is no justification for one of the largest wastes of money ever concieved in the history of man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't see why on earth my personal freedoms should be restricted by the hysteria of the paranoid.

Airprt "security" should be confined to the loonie bin where belongs. There is no justification for one of the largest wastes of money ever concieved in the history of man.

---

When I was but a wee garsoon, every third semi-nut or political quixotic was hijacking aircraft to make a statement. Ended up generating a lot of "take me to Cuba" jokes and the beginnings of airport security and police/military intervention teams. Until the hijackers learned it wasn't going to get them much of anything, it continued. Security made it tougher and coordinated responses among governments made it more and more pointless -- so mostly it stopped.

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

I think people forget that several recent hijacking or other terrorist attempts have involved people who did not look arab, and dressed in the same style of clothing as everyone else.

While double-checking these folks may be prudent, perhaps even assigning a sky marshal if we're so concerned, it's going to be unlikely that the traditional muslim garb people are the terrorists. More likely, they would be the folks jumping on the guy dressed in jeans who was threatening the other passengers. Maybe if that happened people would realize there's a difference between Muslims and terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Tsk...for how long have we known each other now?

You need to get up pretty early in the morning to get in the child-molesting priest reference before me. I needed only eight posts this thread.

---

Bah, I know you always have the old catholic joke in the back pocket

rookie mistake on my part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Bah, I know you always have the old catholic joke in the back pocket

rookie mistake on my part

---

Is that a catholic joke in your pocket or are you just happy to see Louis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

When I was but a wee garsoon, every third semi-nut or political quixotic was hijacking aircraft to make a statement. Ended up generating a lot of "take me to Cuba" jokes and the beginnings of airport security and police/military intervention teams. Until the hijackers learned it wasn't going to get them much of anything, it continued. Security made it tougher and coordinated responses among governments made it more and more pointless -- so mostly it stopped.

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

---

Airport security is complete nonsense.

I'm not arguing for disbanding the police force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Airport security is complete nonsense.

---

Oh. Why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Oh. Why.

---

Because it makes noone any safer, and it costs so many billions it makes my brain hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Who assumed that? Everyone is obliged to alter their behavior to a certain extent when traveling by air these days. There are a lot of things I wear in everyday life that I might not choose to wear when getting on an airplane, like shoes with laces. :shame:

---

The thing is that their robes are completely harmless, as far as I know. The only reason they should not wear that sort of attire is due to islamophobic sentiments ('muslim looking guy' = terrorist), which is wrong. So, if they are not interested in provocating - then they have done nothing wrong. But even if they are looking to provocate, then it is still wrong that what they are doing actually should lead to a provocation. A person openly saying bad things about a dictator in a dictatorship knows well that his words will provocate, but that does not justify the reaction of those who become provocated. Et cetera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

What I really don’t understand is why they insist in wearing these clothes, as there is no signification whatsoever. Just cloths, it is not imposed/required by the Curran, not sacred, not holly, nothing like e.g. the various clothing on the Catholic Church.

---

So, we're come to the point were we have to justify what sort of clothes we are wearing: "If you don't have a good reason for wearing those clothes, then don't wear them all". Sounds fine for some sorts of clothes, but clothes that has not been demonstrated to mean much else other than "I belong to this faith" - now that is hindering freedom of expression. As per above, a pretty twisted perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because it makes noone any safer, and it costs so many billions it makes my brain hurt.

---

It does make people safer, being able to bring explosives on a plane then again doesn't. Also comes in handy for human and drug weapon traffickers. You seem to be confusing how things should be and how they are again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It does make people safer, being able to bring explosives on a plane then again doesn't. Also comes in handy for human and drug weapon traffickers. You seem to be confusing how things should be and how they are again.

---

No, they don't make people safer, simply because they don't stop explosives going through security.

There have been plenty of tests on the security controls, and they never catch all of them. Considering the insane number of people going through security every day, you would need to stop 100% of them. Not close to 100, not 99.9999, you need 100.

And since the success rate of the checks are around 7/10, it's about as useful as licking your finger and pointing to the sky.

Even if it was 100%, it's still waaaaaaay too expensive to be justified in a cost/benefit analysis. People stand for 30 minutes at the checkpoint. Time is money. Let's say the average wage is 20 bucks an hour. That means standing in line for 30 minutes doing nothing costs 10 dollars. Now, multiply that number with the number of passengers since 2001. The figure is mind-blowing. And since we don't have access to a pot with infinite money, perhaps we can take a look at what else we could buy for that amount, which would save a lot more lives. Aids medicine in Africa is what, 100 bucks per person per year? That's the cost of forcing 10 people through security.




I have a brilliant idea!

Drugs kill people. A lot of people. And ruin the lives of many, many more. Drugs are smuggled in cars and trailers through our borders. Why don't we detain and check every car and trailer that passes through our borders for 30 minutes? It would be a pain for smugglers, wouldn't it? This is just so S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, they don't make people safer, simply because they don't stop explosives going through security.

There have been plenty of tests on the security controls, and they never catch all of them.

---

Yes they do, they have dogs for that, can't stop all but can stop most. Expensive yes, but it's the passenger that pays for it not the tax-payer, ask them if they want to pay a little extra for that.

perhaps we can take a look at what else we could buy for that amount, which would save a lot more lives.

What do you suggest?

“So, we're come to the point were we have to justify what sort of clothes we are wearing: "If you don't have a good reason for wearing those clothes, then don't wear them all".”
Well, in another debate, some suggest that women wearing some “slut” clothing are partially responsible for their rape…

You don’t have to justify what clothes you wear but you have to be aware of the result and the symbol of some clothes.
When I was younger and in the army, I choose to wear my uniform or not, depending of what I wanted to do (achieve) and who I would meet.
If you wear “afghan” fashion clothing you want to spread a political message, not a religious one, as there is not compulsory requirements for an Imam, contrary to Catholic Priest.
They made their point and, yes, blow a way “the nation of the Free” self assume notion defended by some even on this forum.

I spend a lot of time to explain that some clothes are more than clothes and are a political statements. And I see nothing wrong in this. However, when someone decided to play on “oh, it is only a piece of clothing” button I think it is pure hypocrisy.
The passengers didn’t react on the fact the Imams were Muslim but on the Clothing they choose to wear.
Well, they shouldn’t. Shouldn’t they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“So, we're come to the point were we have to justify what sort of clothes we are wearing: "If you don't have a good reason for wearing those clothes, then don't wear them all".”

You don’t have to justify what clothes you wear but you have to be aware of the result and the symbol of some clothes.
When I was younger and in the army, I choose to wear my uniform or not, depending of what I wanted to do (achieve) and who I would meet.
If you wear “afghan” fashion clothing you want to spread a political message, not a religious one, as there is not compulsory requirements for an Imam, contrary to Catholic Priest.
They made their point and, yes, blow a way “the nation of the Free” self assume notion defended by some even on this forum.

I spend a lot of time to explain that some clothes are more than clothes and are a political statements. And I see nothing wrong in this. However, when someone decided to play on “oh, it is only a piece of clothing” button I think it is pure hypocrisy.
The passengers didn’t react on the fact the Imams were Muslim but on the Clothing they choose to wear.
Well, they shouldn’t. Shouldn’t they?

---

And what does these clothes represent? "I think OBL was a great guy"? I don't know what 'Afghan fashion clothing' is, and I doubt that too many of the passengers knew it either. At best they could realise the imams were muslims, but it wouldn't surprise me if sikhs also managed to get that label.

What really happened here is 'clothing indicates Muslim, which indicates potentential terrorist'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yes they do, they have dogs for that, can't stop all but can stop most. Expensive yes, but it's the passenger that pays for it not the tax-payer, ask them if they want to pay a little extra for that.

---

This is getting tedious....

No frags, they don't. They've failed in every test I have ever seen. The typical way to do it, is by sending 10 guys in with various items. Usually, they stop 6-7 of them, that means 3-4 terrorists get through at every test.

And this is before we factor in types of explosives etc that outsmarts the security checks.

A few links of failures for your enjoyment, frags, google can provide you with many more:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/771587/

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...st-in-Slovakia

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...r_airport.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-28/u...bombs?_s=PM:US

This is quite simply the biggest waste of money the world has ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

---

The passengers are the best security now against hijackers. That method of attack has been closed.

What you see in US airport terminals is theater. The screening process has been absorbed into the war on drugs, the full body X-ray scans are both a handout to connected individuals and a potential health risk to both passengers and screeners, and the screeners themselves are either incompetent, criminal, or overworked/underpaid (mainly this). The terminals are the greatest target point at the moment, large crowds of people packed into serpentine lines prior to screening, created by the process itself.

"This is quite simply the biggest waste of money the world has ever seen."

Can think of better candidates for that award, but it isn't free no. But it's necesary, not in the least because other countries won't like it if we don't check stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

"This is quite simply the biggest waste of money the world has ever seen."

Can think of better candidates for that award, but it isn't free no. But it's necesary, not in the least because other countries won't like it if we don't check stuff.

---

First off, no circular reasoning, frags.

And no, there is no bigger waste. The billions you claim immigration costs annually is dwarfed by what this scheme costs. And to top it off, it does nothing to make us "safer". There simply is no benefit to this stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

First off, no circular reasoning, frags.

And no, there is no bigger waste. The billions you claim immigration costs annually is dwarfed by what this scheme costs. And to top it off, it does nothing to make us "safer". There simply is no benefit to this stupidity.

---

No circularity, your argument only makes sense in a reality that doesn't exist. It's not possible to scratch airport security. Why are you complaining anyway passenger pays

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No circularity, your argument only makes sense in a reality that doesn't exist. It's not possible to scratch airport security. Why are you complaining anyway passenger pays

---

It's "not possible" to stop immigration or scrap the welfare state either, but I still hear complainin'.

And no, it's not the passanger that pays. The passanger pays for the security personell and such, yes, but that's only a small part of what this costs. The biggest amount, the lost labour, is paid for by anyone who purchases products sold by companies who uses planes as transportation. This means every company, and so unless you're a hermit living in a cave eating plants, you pay for it.

“And what does these clothes represent? "I think OBL was a great guy"?”.
Yeap. Sort of.
That means you support the Talibans and their view on Islam, and you count the US victims without acknowledging that the Talibans and others extremists killed more Muslims than all “imperialists” and infidels…
That means you are against the US policy (and you can be) but you support a specific kind of regime and values.
Again, as much as I know, these Imams were not Afghan or Kurds (or Navajo) so they made a choice that was political.

“I don't know what 'Afghan fashion clothing' is”: Come on, you don’t watch the news? Looks a little bit like the Navajo or Apache clothes.:beam:

“I doubt that too many of the passengers knew it either”: I would say that the fact they were frighten by it would make your assumption wrong… Perhaps they watch News.

“'clothing indicates Muslim, which indicates potentential terrorist'” My point, indeed. The choice of these clothes was done in order to create this reaction…

Except of course that there is no Muslim Clothing. :inquisitive:

So the choice to wear clothes that every body would identify as Muslim thanks to a country very well covered by Media so easily recognisable was done on purpose in order to create the incident.
And they were right to do so as it proves that the US land of the Free is not what it supposed to be.
They played victimisation and succeeded.
Let’s make it simple. If they had worn Moroccan Clergy Clothes, nobody would have notice. As there is nothing noticeable…

Say what? Should Afghan imams be barred from flying ,because by being Afghan they must support, or, shall we say, did support Osama bin Laden?

I am sure the passengers that would get scared of these imams would even manage to become scared by copts

https://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2705/9coptrep1.jpg

Or the Sikhs. Both should of course know that they look like devout muslims, which means that they are probably terrorists.

No, I do not think pepople would think 'Afghanistan' upon seing those people, that is way too specific for the average person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

What a bunch of nonsense. As long as it conforms with law of the land, people should be free to wear whatever they want to on airline without discrimination.

---

Yes, they should, and indeed, they were! In fact, they were given the very next flight out in what I'm sure were upgraded seats. If these people were barred from ever flying again, I'd be right there with you, but what I object to is the asinine Civil Rights references. If you dress up like Osama bin Laden in the days after his death and try to pass through US airport security, you should expect some issues. (And yes, it was all dress up. I have friends at the U of M, where one of these fellows teaches Arabic, and apparently he dresses in jeans and a polo normally.) I do not think they should have been thrown off the plane, if the story as it is being told is accurate, but I'm not prepared to crown them Civil Rights heroes either. 'Situationally unaware dolts' seems more appropriate.

Of course, maybe these people on their way to a grand conference on "Islamaphobia" and with CAIR and the national press on speed dial (and, in fact, a cleverly packaged and sound-bite-shortened Rosa Parks analogy) knew exactly what they were talking about. Rosa Parks was looking for trouble too on that fateful day in 1955. However, one could certainly argue her grievances went far beyond getting bumped from a flight. In any event, now they get to have their press conference on what a terrible, racist country this is with much more media attention.

Keep in mind that certain people, especially in the worlds of NPOs and acedemia, thrive on social disharmony. Attention, respect, grants, tenure, board memberships, publishing deals, speaking gigs, and all sorts of other trappings are now associated with becoming a Civil Rights victim-hero in this country.

Quote:

---

You act as though people in tradiational islamic attire are highjacking planes daily and the only way to stop them is by profiling.

---

Daily? Nein. Enough to be a serious concern? I think so, although they've moved from trying to hijack planes to simply trying to blow them up mid-flight. And yes, it would be stupid not to profile them.

Quote:

---

Yes it is racism and anti-islamic crap. That is the very essence of the situation.

---

Racism is an irrational hatred or intolerance of another race. I don't think this has anything to do with hatred, intolerance, or these people's race. It was based on justified, if not well thought out, security concerns, considering the current environment.

Quote:

---

"I can promise you the captain didn't throw those people off because of the way they were dressed. There's more to the story,” Ray said.

Ray said ultimately, it’s the captain’s call. “The captain operates in an environment that's always changing. It's dynamic. You can't fly an airplane by committee,” he said.

Ray said last week, every pilot in the country received e-mail briefings from their airlines warning them to be on high alert because of Osama Bin Laden’s death. He said that may have played in a part in Friday’s decision.

"We don't know if he had a message from air traffic control. We don't know if he got a message from his corporate security people to take these people off. We don't have all the answers."

The imams were headed to Charlotte for a weekend conference on "islamophobia" - the fear of Islam.

They were put on another flight and arrived a few hours later.

---

Anyway, I'm with Captain Ray. This is all just too convenient. The pilot had to have flown with traditionally dressed Muslims in the ~10 years since 9/11, and why would he go ahead and taxi out only to turn around?

Edit: And the plot thickens.

Quote:

---

Early reports indicated their removal was ordered by the aircraft's pilot. On Friday, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Jon Allen had told the Commercial Appeal of Memphis that the men "were screened and cleared to fly" by the agency. But later, one of the passengers told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that "he spoke to the pilot after landing in Charlotte and the pilot told him that TSA requested the plane return to the terminal."

An airline spokesman said the incident was under investigation. The two clerics were put on aircraft that departed later. It turned out the clerics were headed to a weekend conference on "Islamophobia" in Charlotte.

"The irony of their going to a convention on Islamophobia when this happened is not lost," said aviation consultant Robert Mann.

Mann said he sensed that security was heightened as he boarded flights last week at Kennedy International Airport and at Miami International Airport. "I suspect there were advisories of some sort that related to the changed state of balance," he said. "It is always an interesting dynamic, how that is interpreted by individuals and carriers. You rarely get the full story on these incidents, given the security sensitivities."

---

Me and fifteen friends have booked our summer holiday to America! We have four guys on each plane. Everything was paid for with a single credit card. We only booked one way tickets. We shall be flying to NY on September 11th, the tenth anniversary. We shall be dressed as the Belgian football team.

Do you think there won't be any problems or does the US discriminate against Belgian footbal players?


That is, perhaps this case is not so much about discrimination of Muslim passangers. Who incidentally appear to be able to fly to, from and in America by the millions. But against peopl who make all the alarm bells go off. Who sometimes, quite possibly, were deliberately out to make the alarms go off.



What I would like to know, is what these two men wear in their daily lives. I think that they wear pretty standard attire to work, and that they put on 'the cleric costume' and 'the South Asian outfit' to make a political statement, to provoke a reaction. To look 'Muslim'.

Maybe people aren't stupid, maybe the passengers aren't stupid, maybe they noticed that there was something 'off' about these two men, that they were 'testing the system' for some reason or another. Maybe the people surmised that these two were using their flight to make a political statemement, and maybe they were exactly right about that too.

The next terrorist attack is not going to be by four guys, cleanly shaven, Western clothes. This was the last attack, and everybody is keeping an eye out for that. What people were afraid of, in this week of intense coverage of attacks on US planes through OBL's death, Obama's remembrance at Ground Zero, AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.
Like, say, two guys dressing up in religious attire to board a plane, with Lord knows what in mind. I think the people on board correctly figured out these two had a political statement in mind, albeit that they had no means to tell that this statement was not a terror attack but their Islamophobia congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

When I was but a wee garsoon, every third semi-nut or political quixotic was hijacking aircraft to make a statement. Ended up generating a lot of "take me to Cuba" jokes and the beginnings of airport security and police/military intervention teams. Until the hijackers learned it wasn't going to get them much of anything, it continued. Security made it tougher and coordinated responses among governments made it more and more pointless -- so mostly it stopped.

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

---

Oh for the days of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckkrHV12ooc

What is religious attire in Islamic context? The djelabba or djelebbiya? Is it the turban or the fez? What constitutes Islamic clothing and what differentiates it from Arab clothing?

I don't think we should mix up male Arab clothing and Islamic clothing. I feel it might only give even more rise to the general concept of "Arab = Muslim", which is not only unfair, but also kind of racist.

Quote:

---

The next carefully prepared terrorist attack is not going to be by four guys, cleanly shaven, Western clothes.

---

I made my own adjustments. I think that any organisation defined as being radically Islamic will take precautions and probably won't go on board wearing a djelabiyya and a turban. Let's not be silly. Maybe that a single Muslim who is sick of the perceived discrimination will cause a scene, but a carefully orchestrated attack? I don't think so.

Quote:

---

AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.

---

I may presume too much here, but I think al-Qaeda isn't really going to do that much anymore.

Quote:

---

Of course, maybe these people on their way to a grand conference on "Islamaphobia" and with CAIR and the national press on speed dial know exactly what they are talking about.

---

Wait, are you accusing the US press of being pro-Muslim or something? Eh..okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

I made my own adjustments. I think that any organisation defined as being radically Islamic will take precautions and probably won't go on board wearing a djelabiyya and a turban. Let's not be silly.

---

I do not think that the next AQ plot will involve the exact same configuration as last time, the one that will make all alarm bells go off. Everybody knows terrorists go out of their way to look ordinary, therefore the clever terrorist will try to not look etc etc.
Plus AQ doesn't repeat itself. More worryingly, it is not AQ in the first place that one should've been afraid of last week. The danger was the individual losing his cool in the intense events of last week. One or two ordinary guys, who want to make a political statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LVI

AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.

---

I may presume too much here, but I think al-Qaeda isn't really going to do that much anymore.

---

Sorry, sloppy interpunction by me.
The point is indeed that it is probably not AQ one should've been wary about last week. But rather the threat of one or two guys trying to make some sort of political statement. Remember that congresswoman, Griffords, who got shot by one guy who may / may not have been driven by the intesity of the political climate? That sort of thing, that is what I would be wary about on a plane the first 24 hours after a commemorative service at Ground Zero. This is how it reads properly:
What people were afraid of, in this week of intense coverage of attacks on US planes through OBL's death, Obama's remembrance at Ground Zero, AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.

One does not board an Israeli plane wearing a Panzerjager t-shirt. Yes, you;ve got your freedom of speech. But you know this is going to take at least a few hours of explaining in some swelteringly hot office. Likewise, one knows that to board a US plane last week in Islamic garb is going to be a hassle. You realise full well you will be checked. And will be double-checked. Therefore, the average Muslim simply wears standard clothes, shows his passport, gets on the plane like everybody else, and no problem. Two guys who dress up for the occasion - well, they understand they will face a lot of hassle. What's more, the other passengers know that these two understand this, so the passengers - probably correcty! - surmise these two are in it to make a political statement.

What statement, they don't know. Maybe they seek to provoke. Maybe they go to a congress and want to create a buzz. Maybe they want to hope to commit suicide-by-fbi. Maybe they want to wait for take-off and shout 'Hail Osama!' and storm the cockpit. Maybe they want to....whatever, why shuold the passengers wait and see just what exactly they have in mind? Me I'm not going to take my chances. These guys are in the same plane with me to possibly make some sort of political statement, and I'm not going to take my chances. Either they leave or I leave. Considering these guys did not make the effort, I say let them leave.

Hope these two guys get even more press attention for their message against Islamophobia and other racism or racialized bigotry that still exists against Muslim now. Also, that captain deservedly is going to look like the :daisy:he was (though the poor airline is going to take an image hit and we don't need that with our economy).

A third cleric was barred from flying to the conference.

So apparantly, during a week of heightened tension and intense security measures, 200 Imams decide to fly across America, dressed in head-to-toe Islamic garb, to see (try?) if they will face anti-terror measures. Three got denied from flying.

Whatever else one may think of this, these are not ordinary people going about their daily business. These were activists in action, trying to see if they would (could?) find themselves discriminated against.

Quote:

---

At least three Muslim clergymen were denied access to flights bound for Charlotte over the weekend. They were trying to attend the annual meeting of the North American Imams Federation. The airlines are saying little about why the men were not allowed to fly.

Imam Al-Amin Abdul Latif spoke to WFAE by cell phone while driving home to New York from Charlotte. He had to drive because Friday morning at the La Guardia airport, American Airlines refused to let him on the plane.

He came to Charlotte for a conference of Muslim clergy. The main topic was how to address Islamophobia.

Latif and other Muslim imams who attended the Charlotte conference feel like discrimination against them is growing. The recent killing of Osama Bin Laden may have added to the scrutiny for about 200 imams travelling to Charlotte last weekend.
http://www.wfae.org/wfae/1_87_316.cf...isplay&id=7297

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Denied cleric, three weeks ago at rally:


https://img812.imageshack.us/img812/4061/dsc00842g.jpg

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2011...09,%202011.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It's "not possible" to stop immigration or scrap the welfare state either, but I still hear complainin'.

And no, it's not the passanger that pays. The passanger pays for the security personell and such, yes, but that's only a small part of what this costs. The biggest amount, the lost labour, is paid for by anyone who purchases products sold by companies who uses planes as transportation. This means every company, and so unless you're a hermit living in a cave eating plants, you pay for it.

---

They hardly ship bulk in passenger planes, way too heavy. Long distance transportation goes by sea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They hardly ship bulk in passenger planes, way too heavy. Long distance transportation goes by sea

---

Ship bulk? Who cares about that? I'm talking about the employees travelling on company time by plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ship bulk? Who cares about that? I'm talking about the employees travelling on company time by plane.

---

They can do that, so then why is airport security a waste of money?

edit, I mean the greatest waste of money in human history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They can do that, so then why is airport security a waste of money?

edit, I mean the greatest waste of money in human history

---

Sigh..........

I have already explained this, but I'll do it one more time:

Because standing in line for 30 minutes costs money. And that cost is transferred to the consumer, as rising costs for a company results in rising prices for their products.

Time is money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sigh..........

I have already explained this, but I'll do it one more time:

Because standing in line for 30 minutes costs money. And that cost is transferred to the consumer, as rising costs for a company results in rising prices for their products.

Time is money.

---

It's called checking in, even without airport security tickets have to be checked, and it isn't airport security who does it anyway. You just walk through a sensor, takes a few secs

Quote:

---

So apparantly, during a week of heightened tension and intense security measures, 200 Imams decide to fly across America, dressed in head-to-toe Islamic garb, to see (try?) if they will face anti-terror measures. Three got denied from flying.

Whatever else one may think of this, these are not ordinary people going about their daily business. These were activists in action, trying to see if they would (could?) find themselves discriminated against.

---

1.5% was barred from flying. Maybe it's not as bad as it looks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

1.5% was barred from flying. Maybe it's not as bad as it looks.

---

I disagree, although only 3 got out of it what they wanted. Must be hard work shrieking you are discriminated when you aren't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's called checking in, even without airport security tickets have to be checked, and it isn't airport security who does it anyway. You just walk through a sensor, takes a few secs

---

Standing in line takes around 30 minutes during rush hour, where most business flights take place. This is in addition to the time it takes to check in etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Standing in line takes around 30 minutes during rush hour, where most business flights take place. This is in addition to the time it takes to check in etc.

---

You walk through a sensor luggage is scanned c'est ca. Back at ya, how much would it cost if employees don't want to fly because it's not safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You walk through a sensor luggage is scanned c'est ca. Back at ya, how much would it cost if employees don't want to fly because it's not safe.

---

You walk through a sensor, yes, after standing in line for 30 minutes minimum. Something tells my you usually travel very early in the morning and at smaller airports.... My personal record is 1,5 hours at Gardemoen in the early afternoon.

You ask how much does the paranoid and hysterical cost our society? Way too much.

Had security check taken that long on Gardermoen at a minimum, I'd missed a few planes by now. But luckily, reality differs - so it's cool (I'd hate to have to travel by train!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

One does not board an Israeli plane wearing a Panzerjager t-shirt.

---

Yes, because muslims = nazis. Comparison makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Whatever else one may think of this, these are not ordinary people going about their daily business. These were activists in action, trying to see if they would (could?) find themselves discriminated against.

---

And they got discriminated - which means that we should complain about their behaviour. Of course, only bad guys would ever protest against discrimination - I mean, who else.

WHATS CRAZY IS THAT THIS STUFF HAPPENS EVERYWHERE I TRIED TO FLY FROM KUWAIT TO SWEDEN DRESSED AS A PIG AND THE PASSENGERS COMPLAINED AND TEH PILOT KICKED ME OFF AND I HAD TO DRIVE INSTEAD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

1.5% was barred from flying. Maybe it's not as bad as it looks.

---

Countless millions of times do Muslims travel the US airspace each year. It is - what? -0.0001% who fail to make their flight. Sometimes through perhaps no fault of their own, sometimes for reasons the refused traveller has a large influence upon.


Rosa Parks, Blacks in general, were outright barred from travelling in the bus (in certain sections of the bus in certain sectors of America). Muslims by contrast are perfectly allowed to travel anywhere, any which way they please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Yes, because muslims = nazis. Comparison makes sense

---

No, compared is the predictability of the trouble one will face over non-conformist attire when travelling by air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No, compared is the predictability of the trouble one will face over non-conformist attire when travelling by air.

---

.....and that, my friend, is horribly wrong.

I find it fascinating to see an educated frenchman argue in favour of conforming to the standards of the power elite. What happened with your revolution anyway?!

Quote:

---

What happened with your revolution anyway?!

---

I've cut my hair and turned square.

I shall now take it all out on all you unwashed punks, browns, and anything else deviating from my norm.

But do you find it hip to be square?

Here, there and everywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But do you find it hip to be square?

Here, there and everywhere?

---

Progress upsets the status quo

I assume Louis rather likes the status quo

Non?

I dislike Status Quo, but by Jove, I love Huey Lewis.


Did I tell you all how I once bumped into him and we had a great chat? Awesome guy, really the kindest man you'll ever meet. :smitten:

Is that an American Psycho reference?

I'm enlisting you to forced "hits of the 80's"-education camp, SFTS.

Son I am disappoint.