This is so fucked up. It's worth noting that the behavior that caused people to get suspicious was evening prayer.
The ever-reliable Hindrocket says,
They just can't understand why lots of Americans don't find the sight of a group of Muslim men saying "Allahu akbar" on an airplane reassuring.
"Ed.: I don't think there are anywhere neaer 1.7 billion Muslims."
2: See, ogged, what you've forgotten is that it's up to the muslims to make us feel safe.
Personally, I think we should provide people who are afraid of the Scary Arabs with a free one-way ticket out of the country, and a generous settlement bonus to both the traveler and the recipient country. I'm tired of these motherfuckers.
One of the imams said something like, it's frustrating after all these years that people still don't know anything about Islam. If you knew that there's this five-times-daily thing involving "Allahu akbar" you might not freak out so much, John.
I want someone to complain that a person wearing a cross, or making the sign of the cross, is making them nervous and demand that they be removed from the plane because they're obviously a religous nut who might pose a threat.
Actually, having read the powerline post, I think what's so annoying is that Hinderaker obviously thinks there's some issue here, but he's not coming out and saying just what it is, as if this is anything other than completely stupid.
You know what? People doing religious things does freak me out a little bit. Or at least, the night makes me a little uncomfortable. I saw a Muslim woman praying in the library the other day and I was like "whoa" (and I have seen Muslim prayer A Lot). It weirds me out when I see Christians say their little personal prayer before they eat when there's not a communal prayer, too. Once I was in JFK when a Jewish holiday was going on (I'm Judaism-ignorant, so I don't know what it was, and I can't remember what was happening, but it was clearly some religious practice or other), and that was a little weird, too. But you know what?
I GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
I can't believe there are people in this world who think that everyone else has to change their behavior to pacify them. It sickens me. This story is fucking. Pissing. Me. Off.
"night" s/b "sight". Night doesn't make me uncomfortable, although maybe it should.
Leblanc, you're making me a little nervous, and I'm going to have to ask you to leave the blog.
Any litigators want to sue on 1st Amendment grounds? (Or has someone already done this when I wasn't looking?)
The airlines are private entities, but aren't they tightly bound up with public property/the government through the airports themselves? I forget the precise wording of the Constitutional standard, but when there's a significant amount of public/private intermingling (as there is here) the first amendment prohibitions can be extended to private parties, because it's as if the government itself was acting. Happened in several famous cases of the civil rights era (the details of none of which I now remember).
Also, doesn't the civil rights act apply here? None of this is even close to my area of law, but airlines are certainly engaged in interstate commerce, and this seems to be discrimination within the statute's scope.
Is there any doubt these it would be judged unconstitutional if the policy was to throw black people off the planes if they were making whitey uncomfortable, what with their big afros and their scary rap music? Legally, how is this any different? (I understand that blacks are a more sympathetic class than muslims in our society, sadly including our legal system, so it's not the same case, but legally is there any difference?)
You want freaky praying? Orthodox Jews look like they're having a seizure when they pray. In fact, weren't a bunch of them thrown off a plane because people thought they were weird (and maybe assumed they were Muslim too)? Wasn't there a post here about it?
M. Night Leblanc makes me uncomfortable.
No, wait. I'm thinking of M. Night Shyamalan.
Here's the post. I am now officially pathetic, recalling details of months-old unfogged posts.
Okay, now it seems everyone's uncomfortable, so new rule: no more religious persons on planes! If you cannot sign an affidavit of atheism, you can take the Amtrek. Or the Greyhound.
We need to shift the focus, people. More anti-semitism!
2: Hindrocket is a fucking idiot. a) they weren't saying their prayers on the plane, they were saying them in the terminal before the flight left. It would be quite inconvenient to pray on the plane, given the space it requires, and b) there's no reason to think they were saying "allahu akbar," because most people when they pray in public alone are silent. Sometimes they mouth things themselves, but that's usually it.
Maybe he should learn a thing or to about Muslim prayer his damn self. Ugh.
13- Actually, that would be an interesting exercise. Someone complains about a scary black person on a plane, presumably the airline officials will blow it off. Then complain about how it's a scary black MUSLIM!!!1! who was chanting in Arabic and see how the reaction changes.
13: I don't know if this would really qualify as state action for first amendment purposes, because it's only happening occasionally, but you're damn right abou the interstate commerce thing. In fact, there was a case whose name I'm forgetting about a hotel that discriminated against blacks (I think it was... Heart of Atlanta Motel?), and they got it on Interstate Commerce, because it was on a highway. So.
I am sure someone will be suing about this, probably the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (for whom I really, really want to work right now).
Aren't airlines common carriers? Of course, there are limits to the antidiscrimination duties of common carriers, one of which is risk, which I assume the airlines are relying upon.
Earlier this year I was at some airport or other (JFK? O'Hare?) waiting for my connecting flight, and I went to the interfaith chapel to pray. These were Buddhist prayers which are not in English. I wonder, if I had prayed in the waiting area at the gate rather than in the confines of the chapel, would I have gotten yanked from the plane? It almost makes me want to find out next time I travel by air. But not really.
23- it's only happening occassionally? It seems from reported incidents as if this is the official (if unstated) airline policy. Perhaps it's just a few bad apple flight stewards, but I haven't gotten that impression. There's at least enough evidence certainly to justify broad discovery motions into internal airline policies and communications to see if this is a systemic problem.
There's no question as to interstate commerce. Is there any industry more squarely engaged in interstate commerce, in every possible sense, than airlines?
The white zone is for prayers and devotionals only. There is no praying in the red zone.
By choice. For about fourteen years now.
Well, there goes another dearly held stereotype: buddhists by birth are funny, but buddhists by choice aren't. Thanks for broadening my horizons, dude.
I demand that this p.c. pandering to scaredy-cats whose delicate secular sensibilities are offended by the sight of devotion stop, immediately. What is this country coming to, when the sight of men wearing beards--displaying the outward characteristics of their very manhood!--is "offensive" or "frightening" to Americans? We must roll back these effeminate and lily-livered
ideas that manly men bowing down to a manly god are somehow attacking America! This nation was founded by manly, bearded, praying men!!!!
watch out for those Buddhists; the only reason they haven't massacred anyone yet is that they've never managed to get an army together.
(this joke is doubly false btw; the Buddhists have managed to get an army together on several occasions, and in general Buddhist states when they arise are surprisingly intolerant and violent. I think that Burma/Myanmar is the only currently active polity where Buddhism is the state religion, although there is a virulent anti-Christian campaign in Cambodia carried out by the local Buddhists using the slogan "Jesus is Pol Pot Number Two").
I was in a Taiwan theatre once. Taiwan is about 2%-4% (??) Christian, both Chinese and aboriginal non-Chinese. One of the characters married into a Chinese Christian family. The first time she ate dinner with her new family, before they started they said a prayer, and the whole theatre burst out laughing.
33: "Manly, bearded, praying men" made me think of this guy. Him, I would not want on my plane. Even with him being dead, and all.
Perhaps especially with his being dead.
35: Well, be fair. Christians are hilarious.
re: 34
Thailand and Sri Lanka are both majority Buddhist are they not? Even if that's not the official state religion.
36: As I clicked, I was expecting this guy. Wouldn't want him on my plane either.
I see an investment opportunity in Bearded Praying Men Airlines.
23: it's only happening occasionally?
Given the number of people flying every day, and assuming each time it happens it shows up on the news and reported on the 'net, it's "occasionally".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_airlines
41- I hope they never do a merger with Naked Airlines
Thailand is majority Buddhist and currently a military dictatorship (it also has very strict and strictly enforced laws on lese-majeste). Sri Lanka is Buddhist by a bare majority I think. Otoh, I forgot about Nepal and Bhutan, both of them Buddhism state-religion and neither of them likely to be joining the club of liberal democracies very soon.
I think we can fairly say that *dead* bearded praying men are not welcome on passenger flights. I'm okay with that level of discrimination.
42: I think it's interesting that it only started being reported, a few years after 9/11. Now it's practically every month Does that mean it wasn't happening before, or the climate wasn't right for people to be paying attention?
44: See, ogged had it backwards. The Buddhists-by-choice are the funny ones.
45: How about dead naked people? You got a problem with them?
Once upon a time Tommy and I planned a stunt in the spirit of cool Canadian kids who were organizing fun zombie gatherings at local parks: a Million Man Lurch down the National Mall to protest the discrimination that Undead Americans face from the living majority.
--What do we want?
--Braaains!
--When do we want them?
-- . . . braaaains . . .
It amazes me how socially acceptable anti-Muslim bias is, to the point that it goes unremarked. Slashdot or Metafilter or some other site linked approvingly to this post by Scott Adams yesterday about atheism and how the US might be ready for an atheist like Bill Gates to be president, excerpting the paragraph:
Ask a deeply religious Christian if he'd rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don't seem so bad lately.seemingly without even considering, hey, assuming that your Muslim neighbor is plotting a terror attack is pretty offensive.
Dilbert is funny but Scott Adams is a flake.
46: the climate wasn't right?
Well, just after 9/11 the really nervous Nellies were shooting Sikhs or sitting on agitated travelers, and most Muslims were praying they weren't going to be flying anywhere.
What I speculate is that each reported incident makes the next one more likely to happen. The anxiety-prone's concerns are being validated each time an airline takes them seriously and that's contagious.
Hmmmm...
Excuse me flight attendant? I noticed all those people in business class were acting suspiciously before getting on this flight and I'm worried they might do something terrible and think they should be removed. Also, I request an upgrade.
50: Pew did a poll on this topic. 2003 results:
Nearly four-in-ten (38 percent) say they would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim for president...52 percent say they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist.
These results are not related to elections, but are from 2005: the public is consistently quite a bit cooler about atheists than about Muslims.
Perhaps this is partly because seculars, i.e. nonreligious people, are more hostile towards Muslims than the national average. Though one would imagine they're more hostile towards all religions...
Oops. I didn't click through to Adams' blog, but I imagine he was discussing this survey which did, indeed, measure attitudes towards voting for a Muslim or atheist presidential candidate. According to this poll, and among likely voters, they are equally loathed.
Dilbert is funny?
I'm not normally a fan, but this week's bit with the marketer with a butt for a head has been cracking my ass up.
33:I just watched the Mayflower thing on tv and America was not founded by manly, bearded, praying manly men. Goatees and fancy moustaches with lace collars for the 17th century, white wigs with ringlets for the 18th.
No beards. I haven't a clue as to why not.
Back to the post topic: Do you know what's really, really irritating about this AOL headline?
Six Muslims Booted Off Plane
Their Prayers Alarmed Passenger
It contrasts "Muslims" with "Passenger."
(Yeah, yeah, I know, hurried headline-writer and limited space. STILL. Like the "passenger" has a legitimate right to be on the plane and those other guys are, you know, not passengers.)
Ok, can't write long because my back is killing me, but damn, I hate many of the people in this country! The "Talk" section of the Strib regarding this story is just infested with neo-Klan, Know-Nothing morons. I mean, just how stupid do you have to be to think that terrorists would dress up as imams and conspicuosly pray in Arabic prior to hijacking a plane? Not stupid enough to get hit by a truck every time you try to cross the street, and more's the pity.
Well, false consciousness is nothing new. All reactionaries have appealed to many of the lower class, and our epoch is no different. Sigh.
On a happier note:
Disputes Over Sikhs' Required Daggers Prompt a Federal Poster on Respectful Procedures
In an effort to bridge the culture-security gap, the Homeland Security Department and the Sikh legal group yesterday unveiled a poster meant to help screeners through these interactions. The poster, which will be distributed to federal facilities across the country, shows photos of different kirpans, ranging from a symbolic necklace some women wear to the more common three- to six-inch daggers, as well as full-on swords....
Although Sikhs still can't take the wooden- or steel-handled knives -- which sometimes have blunted tips -- into government buildings, the poster tells security workers how to navigate the situation.
"Respectfully ask if a Sikh is carrying a kirpan. If so, request to inspect the kirpan," the poster reads. "If a kirpan must be confiscated, explain the reason(s) why and handle the kirpan with respect and care.
Off-topic, but why hasn't JM told us this: They don't say Mormon, but LDS. Mormon is sort of like "colored" in our parents' day, which was meant to be polite but was taken as less than complimentary. Does she want us to be taken to be boors? I have to learn from The Corner now?
It was an insult, back in the day, but most Mormons don't really make a thing of it these days. LDS is the nice adjectival form, though
Caveat: Most Mormons I know. Remember, I'm not even the most representative jackmormon on this blog.
Hey, I'm in a hurry, but Hindrocket has another post up saying, well, hey, they DID ask for seatbelt extensions-- without *obviously* needing it-- so that's suspicious. Is a seatbelt extension something that could be used to DESTROY AMERICA? I think the odds are overwhelming that maybe the chubby imams were wearing traditional garb that disguises girth, but whatevs. Also they professed some sort of commitment to the Quran. Imagine that.
Why didn't anybody just *ask* them if they want to destroy America?
63: The man very nicely points out that Christianity is loony. He also admits that the mgic underwear is a stealth device by which they sneak past Mormon-detectors. He doesn't realize that people, especially JMs, still can spot Mormons a block away.
I've seen two groups of Mormons prowling the streets in the last week. It must be the season.
Does she want us to be taken to be boors? I have to learn from The Corner now?
Pretty much what JM said. I say bah to that "call me LDS" crap.
I've seen two groups of Mormons prowling the streets in the last week. It must be the season.
Christ, I got pestered just the other day.
"We'd like to come in for a few minutes and tell you of our message about Jesus Christ."
"Kinda busy right now, but I was raised in the church."
"It'll only take a minute, and it's a message about the restored gospel of Jesus."
"Dude, are you even listending to what I'm saying? I was raised in the church. Temple marriage and all that. Believe me, I've heard the message."
To his credit, his companion was also looking at him like he was retarded.
I knew a JM drug dealer once who called it the LSD church.
To his credit, his companion was also looking at him like he was retarded.
Talk about low expectations...
If I were trying to shake off missionaries, I'd claim to have been raised Unitarian. They're supposed to try to court jackmormons, particularly in areas where random door-knocking is less rewarding. My out grand-uncle fed his local ward's missionaries dinner for years even though he was very clear about his position vis-á-vis the church. At one point in my relationship with the local ward here, I thought I could have a similarly casual, neighborly relationship with the missionaries who were calling my home---but no, it was just too weird.
Wow, I never heard the word "jackmormon" before. A Google search reveals what it means.
It's funny that there's a word for that that people actually use.
Ned is clearly not from the Southwest.
True indeed. I've been friends with one "jackmormon" and one non-jack Mormon in my life. The first was from Nebraska via Hawaii so she might have never heard the word either.
Lately the Mormon church has been trying to re-deprecate "Mormon," but only the most stick-up-their-asses Mormons really insist on "LDS." Sometimes you need to distinguish between the Salt Lake City-based church and other Mormon churches and you need more fine-grained terminology, and I suppose if you're a journalist you might have to put up with the church's Public Affairs office chewing you out for disobeying their style guide, but in most cases "Mormon" is perfectly unobjectionable.
Once the church stopped airing those damned "I told the truth!" commercials, Mormons have encountered less prejudice and mockery in their daily lives.
I'm sure that the statistics would support me in this assertion.
There are a number of things Mormons could do to reduce the prejudice and mockery encountered in their daily lives, but I'm not going to start in on them at one in the morning on a school night.
A school night? Tomorrow's the day before Thanksgiving, yo. That hardly counts.
You're right. But you don't want me to start in on Mormonism, in any case.
Wow, I never heard the word "jackmormon" before.
Thanks for reading my comments these past months, Ned.
Not quite as funny as Scientologists, but good times for sure.
Steel sword waving, horse riding Jews colonized the Americas bitches!
you don't want me to start in on Mormonism
By most normative standards, DaveB counts as more Mormon than I do, as does gswift. I hereby pass on the explaining-Mormonism-to-non-members duty to either of them.
Oh, hell, and I just realized that I mispelled "vis-à-vis" in 73. Life really was simpler when I thought that online French didn't require accents. The universe is trying to tell me to go to bed.
gswift nailed it. Jews riding horses in Guatemala in 580 B.C. Mediate on that for a while and you've basically got the whole religion.
DaveB and I are stealthy. Your handle gives you away as the go to person on all things Mormon.
Stealthy is as stealthy does. You two are known enough to me, which means I'll be batsignalling your asses when matters Mormon come up.
In the Book of Mormon, the Americas are settled by Jews who boat over about 2500 B.C., and these Jews are the ancestors of Native Americans. In the book they have horses, steel swords, and all kinds of nifty Old World doo-dads. Good times.
Modern irrigation technology was invented by Mormons. They also play a big role in genealogy and certain areas of linguistics, and their genealogy studies have been very useful to geneticists. One ex-Mormons I know of (the Sinologist Chad Hansen) claims that there are ex-Mormons scattered through al the scholarly world, in somewhat the same way there are ex-Hasidicic and ex-Orthodox Jews all over the place. Memorization of arbitrary, abstruse, seemingly-meaningless stuff is actually good training for science.
82: I've been aware of you! But just because an Unfogged commenter uses a name doesn't mean it must be an actual word. Or...do "joeo" and "gswift" have some colloquial meaning as well???
I picked up knowledge of the term "jack Mormon" from the Monkey Wrench Gang, though I've never really spent time in the Southwest. I was never sure how much real circulation the phrase had, though.
I have also never heard of The Monkey Wrench Gang.
Anyway, I guess this explains why Jackmormon was surprised that people were assuming from her username that she was a man.
The old (late 80s?) LDS commercials used the term Mormons- at the end of each commercial, it said, "sponsored by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints- the Mormons." It's only Republicans who use a term one day and then cry about it being derogatory the next. Oh, wait, I see the connection...
Or...do "joeo" and "gswift" have some colloquial meaning as well???
"gswift" is me being too lazy to write my full name. First initial and last name combined.
Since I know you all love Pajamas Media so much, here's its follow-up story on the six imams, with an actual passenger's account:
--------------------------
By Richard Miniter, PJM Washington Editor
...As the plane boarded, she said, no one refused to fly. The public prayers and Arabic phone call did not trigger any alarms - so much for the p.c. allegations that people were disturbed by Muslim prayers.
But a note from a passenger about suspicious movements of the imams got the crew's attention. A copy of the passenger's note appears in the police report.
To Pauline everything seemed normal. Then the captain - in classic laconic pilot-style - announced there had been a "mix up in our paperwork" and that the flight would be delayed.
In reality, the air crew was waiting for the FBI and local police to arrive.
Ninety minutes after the flight's scheduled 5:15 p.m. departure, the captain announced yet another delay. Still, Pauline said, there was no sense of alarm.
Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies.
The situation in cockpit was far more intense, according to a U.S. Airways spokeswoman and police reports.
Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams' removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors - factors that have largely been ignored by the press.
Another passenger, not the note writer, was an Arabic speaker sitting near two of the imams in the plane's tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside, and in a whisper, translated what the men were saying. They were invoking "bin Laden" and condemning America for "killing Saddam," according to police reports.
Meanwhile an imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extension, even though according to both an on-duty flight attendant and another deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. Hours later, when the passengers were being evacuated, the seat-belt extension was found on the floor near the imam's seat, police reports confirm. The U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said she did not dispute the report, but said the airline's internal investigation cannot yet account for the seat-belt extension request or its subsequent use.
A seat-belt extension can easily be used as a weapon, by wrapping the open-end of the belt around your fist and swinging the heavy metal buckle.
Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies. Days after the incident, the imam would claim that the steward helped him attach the device. Pauline said he is lying. Hours later, when the police was being evacuated, the steward asked Pauline to hand him the seat-belt extension, which the imam did not attach, but placed on the floor. "I know he is lying," Pauline said, "I had it [seat belt extension] in my hand."
A passenger in the third row of first class, Pauline said, told a member of the crew: "I don't have a good feeling about this guy," about the imam who wanted the seat-belt extension.
A married couple one row behind first-class, tried to strike up a conversation with the imam seated near them. He refused to talk or even look at the woman in the eye, according to Pauline. Instead, he stood up and moved to join the other imams in the back of the plane. Why would he leave the luxury end of the aircraft? Pauline wondered. The account of the married couple does not appear in the police report.
Finally, a gate attendant told the captain she thought the imams were acting suspiciously, according to police reports.
So the captain apparently made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. And he consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline's security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, Rader told me.
Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.
And, Pauline said, they spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section. Pauline's account is confirmed by the police report. The airline spokeswoman added that some seemed to be sitting in seats not assigned to them.
One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.
"It was almost as if they were intentionally trying to get kicked off the flight," Pauline said.
A lone plain clothes FBI agent boarded the plane and briefly spoke to the imams. Later, uniformed police escorted them off.
Some press reports said the men were led off in handcuffs, which Pauline disputes. "I saw them. They were not handcuffed."
Later, each imam was individually brought back on the aircraft to reclaim his belongings. They were still not handcuffed. They may have been handcuffed later.
At this point, the passengers became alarmed. "How do we know they got all their stuff off?" Pauline heard one man ask.
While the imams were soon released, Pauline is fuming: "We are the victims of these people. They need to be more sensitive to us. They were totally insensitive to us and then accused us of being insensitive to them. I mean, we were a lot more inconvenienced than them."
The plane was delayed for some three and one-half hours.
Bomb-sniffing dogs were used to sweep the plane and every passenger was re-screened, the airline spokeswoman confirmed. Another detail omitted from press reports.
The reaction of the remaining passengers has also gone unreported. "We applauded and cheered for the crew," she said.
"I think it was either a foiled attempt to take over the plane or it was a publicity stunt to accuse us of being insensitive," Pauline said. "It had to be to intimidate U.S. Airways to ease up on security."
They were totally insensitive to us and then accused us of being insensitive to them. I mean, we were a lot more inconvenienced than them
That tells us pretty much all we need to know about Pauline. And not a single detail in the story that's clearly suspicious; just more innuendo.
Also, it's United, not US Airways, that flies the friendly skies.
Yeah, GB, I'm not following you here. Did you post the story because you think something in it establishes wrongdoing or intentionally provocative behavior on the part of the people thrown off the plane? Because I'm not seeing it.
Hmmmm....
The public prayers and Arabic phone call did not trigger any alarms - so much for the p.c. allegations that people were disturbed by Muslim prayers.
...
But a note from a passenger about suspicious movements of the imams got the crew's attention.
...
Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams' removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors
But I thought it was the note that got the crew's attention?!!? I'm so confused.
Hours later, when the passengers were being evacuated, the seat-belt extension was found on the floor near the imam's seat, police reports confirm.
...
Hours later, when the police was being evacuated, the steward asked Pauline to hand him the seat-belt extension, which the imam did not attach, but placed on the floor. "I know he is lying," Pauline said, "I had it [seat belt extension] in my hand."
Scandalous!!! An unattached seat belt on a plane that never even pushed back from the gate, can you imagine such a thing? And why were the "police" being evacuated?
A seat-belt extension can easily be used as a weapon, by wrapping the open-end of the belt around your fist and swinging the heavy metal buckle.
And how does our friendly neighborhood PJM correspondent know this? Hmmmmmm? I'm suspicious.
A passenger in the third row of first class, Pauline said, told a member of the crew: "I don't have a good feeling about this guy," about the imam who wanted the seat-belt extension.
What is this, Star Wars?
Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies.
...
Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies.
Yes, we got that the first time.
So the captain apparently made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. And he consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline's security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, Rader told me.
All unbiased sources.
Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket.
What? People boarding before their row is called? The horror!!!
Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.
Efficient travel: terrorist activity.
And, Pauline said, they spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section. Pauline's account is confirmed by the police report.
Pauline sure knows a lot about who said what in first class, even when not in the police report, and yet knows where they all sat (and that the 9/11 terrorists did the same!) Pauline: Superwitness.
One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.
I'm sure the aircraft delay had nothing to do with it. And Muslim's aren't allowed to pray at other times during the day? Maybe they're afraid to fly.
Later, each imam was individually brought back on the aircraft to reclaim his belongings. They were still not handcuffed. They may have been handcuffed later.
Sez.....?
The reaction of the remaining passengers has also gone unreported. "We applauded and cheered for the crew," she said.
A sign of rational, thinking, unbiased people, to be sure.
Who was that woman who wrote the editorial around 2003 about how terrifying it was to fly on a plane with a bunch of hairy Muslims who might do terrifying Muslim things to terrorize her? Because, honestly, this reads like the same frigging story.
Am I the only one that doesn't read comments that are over about 10 lines long?
I'm probably missing some real jewels, but it is what it is.
