Of course we drop it, since you have no report confirming your ideas regarding their behavior.
The reality is that authorities will keep you arrested longer if you don’t show good behavior or if testimony was there pointing at you being dangerous. Since the authorities let them go, I have to conclude the items mentioned against them were not important at all.
Ah, so you’re just unclear on the concept of random checks.
The note passed to the flight crew was based on them practicing their religion. The report that they had been praying in the terminal was based on them practicing their religion. The rest of the stuff is based on their ethnicity and a presumption that persons of such ethnicity are Muslims of the dastardly persuasion.
No, I’m not willing to to accept innocent people being harassed and targeted because of their differences. Based on the info in the original link only I pointed out to you that people did not react only to their prayers, which was what you said.
Now, it may be that the other reasons mentioned are merely a smoke screen offered by the authorities. If evidence reveals that to be true then I’ll feel differently. Perhaps your own experience with prejudice has made the signs of and excuses for more apparent to you. Not all of us have had those. My own experience is that there is often more details to the story than we initially hear and it’s not smart to assume our conclusion is the correct one with only a few of the details.
For fuck sake, it’s a supposed scenario, as in “maybe this happened” It doesn’t require evidence and I don’t assume it’s true. I didn’t ignore it. I was responding to other very specific points. You could have been more specific but you were to busy trying to defend your mistake.
Great!! I’m interested. In those other reports, what reason did they give for them not being allowed on other US airways flights? It seems you discovered the answer.
No it isn’t. It’s BS when its presented as true without evidence. I did not present it as true, only as one of several possibilities. See the difference?
Get your head out of your ass. The authorities who released them determined there was no evidence to hold them or charge them. Yes. That being the police or airport security or both. Thats not the same as US air refusing to give them another flight. Two separate organizations…get it?
If you’re saying that proves US air had no reason to deny them a flight then thats a definite maybe. It doesn’t prove any such thing. US air management made their own separate decision for whatever reasons, which are unknown to me. If you found them in one of those other articles then I’m all ears.
Like the experience you had in this thread? :dubious:
When you don’t know why the airline decided not to let them fly on any flights after authorities found they were not a threat, it was therefore not smart to bring ideas to explain why the airline did that.
For fucks sake, I have said that even granting that you are wrong.
No I don’t, I base that in the reality that since authorities took a look at the evidence and then decideed they were safe the burden then is on US Airways to show the justification they had in ignoring the authorities that interrogated them.
Fine, your ideas were still less likely and reckless to propose.
And that is the point. US Air needs to explain.
Moving the goal posts, pathetic.
Nope. I meant just what I described. Blue lights come on when I’ve committed no infraction and I’m pulled over and asked to get out and preform sobriety tests. This is not the same as the occasional roadblock. AFAIK police aren’t supposed to hit the lights and pull you over for no reason at all.
I agree that the response to prayers was ridiculous. If we’re reduced to such fears that a few men praying to Allah sends us in a panic then we need to take a hard look at ourselves. The note also mentioned their conversation about Iraq and the fact that they spread out once they got in the plane. Thats not religion.
In another article one of them says they got separate seats specifically to not raise alarm. How did they suppose that praying together in the boarding area and then spreading out in the plane would put people at ease? If they were so very concerned about not causing undue alarm then why discuss Saddam in English in the boarding area?
As I said, based on that article, it wasn’t just the prayers.
If fundie Christians began a bombing abortion clinics campaign would you be more or less concerned about someone wearing a cross and praying to Jesus near a clinic? How about a group?
:rolleyes:
Even I said it remains understandable why the Airline refused service the first time, After a check up, what the Airline did is not reasonable.
Is it your reading comprehension that sucks or just some compulsion to continue an argument rather than admit a mistake.
I specifically said “not smart to assume our conclusion is the correct one”
and so I didn’t do that. suggesting a possible scenario is not assuming it is correct. It’s only recognizing the possibility lacking other evidence.
I posted the direct quote that you said I ignored later, if not willfully ignoring the key point, you are still proposing ideas that are reckless by ignoring that point.
So you are only proposing weak ideas and unsupported suggestions and have no concussions in this discussion.
Good to know.
Correction:
So you are only proposing weak ideas and unsupported suggestions and have no effective conclusions in this discussion.
Good to know.
Then what was the stated reason given to you? I got pulled over for “erratic driving” once and asked to perform a sobriety test. I laughed and told the officer, “I just got off the ship 30 minutes ago. Hope that’s not enough time to get drunk.” I complied anyway as I figured that refusing to would cost me my license. As it is, it’s understandable that after six months at sea, my land driving skills were a tad rusty. I’m actually a little worried about my vacation next year–I wonder how I’ll fare driving again after two years being out of practice. (There’s absolutely no way I’ll drive in South Korea these days.)
It mentioned a certain group of people doing so. Every single time I get on an airplane, a group of people disperses to different seats. It’s quite simple, really. Those people have nothing to do with each other! In the case under discussion, they were being watched because of who and what they were, or appeared to be.
Who knows? Maybe they were discussing him with someone who only understood English.
The instigating incident was the prayers.
Well, since there have been Fundamentalist types who’ve done that and I haven’t gone into Ultimate Paranoia mode over it, I can safely say, “No, I wouldn’t worry about it.”
And I said we don’t know why they did that. It is two separate organizations. Since you’ve admitted you don’t know either then it’s incorrect to assume that US air was just being prejudice assholes. That may be true but my suggestion may hold some truth as well.
Given their feeling of humiliation it seems reasonable that some heated words were exchanged. Should US air have apologized and given them a flight and refunded their tickets? Probably. We just don’t know what happened between them and the US air reps afterward, or what US air policies are.
I understand how situations like that can escalate. I don’t blame the Imams for being royally pissed. I’m only stating* the fact *that we don’t know why they were refused another flight.
I got various reasons. You’re too close to the center line. You’re too far to the right. I eventually stopped asking for any reason and just cooperated. One officer followed me for about five miles and hit the lights just before I left his jurisdiction.
“Don’t you want to know why I stopped you”
“Sure…why”
“You were weaving a little bit”
“Weaving … a little…okay”
He later admitted he didn’t have a good reason but hey, it’s 2 am and the bars just closed.
Okay officer…thanks…good night.
I think what added suspicion was that fact that they were obviously together in the boarding area but spread out in the plane. Not a big reason granted, but since the Imam said they were making a special effort to not create alarm it didn’t make much sense.
Maybe, but again. He claims they made special efforts to speak English and not cause alarm.
Was it or was it their angry criticism of the US? I don’t know.
We weren’t all that concerned about terrorism either when it was an occasional minor hit every few years and usually not on our soil. 9/11 and this admins shameful campaign of fear have changed that. Since then we’ve heard plenty of reports of attacks against civilians in other countries, and of spoiled plots, some involving airplanes.
What I’m saying is that if extremist fundies launched a concerted campaign to bomb clinics and it was in the news fairly often …I’m betting that would seep in to how you judged things. I’m not saying thats a good excuse to justify fearful prejudice and violating peoples rights under some umbrella of security. I’m only saying we need to be aware of what is in our collective consciousness and do something to make it better.
My cats breath smells like cat food.
So far, taking into account what happened after the interrogation, an unfair policy that will be changed.
The problem I see now is that you can not picture that regardless if it was for prejudice or safety it does not look good at all to deny service after they were interrogated and declared Kosher ( 
). My position is based on what happened after the interrogation and release was made.
Thats right dipshit…because we have no conclusive evidence about why the airline refused them a flight. Which has been my point all along. We have no indication of their reasons at all do we?
You proposed some lame shit you tried to pass of as logic a few posts back, so your criticism here is just another ironic and pathetic display.
At this point it seems you are arguing about the argument rather than making any serious points. Honest…I’m not interested.
So far I see you minimizing one reason for another, my point is that both reasons are not a good excuse to deny service.
Nope, what is pathetic is when you don’t explain why it is so.
When one gets only weak ideas and no conclusions from you, it is not surprising.
In any case it is a serious point that regardless if it was prejudice or just being assholes the Airline was not justified to do what it did after the Imans were interrogated and released.
I wanna hear the story about the mortician not being able to close the coffin, from post #149.
I wanna know what’s the deal with asking for seat belt extensions being “suspicious.” What the hell did that stewardess think he was going to use it for? Strapping his bomb into the seat next to him?
Then the thread went off track. Flipped over. And burned for three days.