With all due respect, that is not what you’re saying. You’ve been saying that there are plenty of other possibilities, and that because there are so many possibilities the Imam’s version of events are not likely.
Merely because things could have occurred another way does not mean they did. You’ve pointed out possible scenarios. Some could have occurred. But it’s much more likely that events transpired as people in this thread have claimed. People have pointed out to you that your hypothetical scenarios are unlikely, and each time you’ve responded by saying they could have happened; that they’re often preposterous and totalling lacking in evidence does not mean they could not have happened, you’re right. But it does mean that they’re extremely unlikely, a point you do not seem to be able to grasp.
Keeping an open mind is one thing. Considering every idea that you can think of - with the same level of seriousness as other, more evidenced, more logical, more likely theories is just silly.
Shove you’re accusations. It was established very quickly that them praying was not the only issue.
Something wrong with your reading skills that makes you waste space stating the obvious. Of course they don’t have a policy that restricts based on religion. No one suggested that.
No I won’t. I’ve pointed out that the details vary. The reports cannot be relied on for being 100% accurate, which is part of my whole point. People are drawing conclusions based on these same reports.
I never said or suggested violence. You’ve got a lot of nerve suggesting I’m thick. A simple refusal to comply requires a different response from the authorities. You’re not to dense to grasp that are you?
And here is where I find your conclusion faulty. Based on the evidence we have we know that their praying and possibly other activities prompted someone to write a note about suspicious Arab men. The airline responded to this note by asking them to leave the aircraft to answer some questions. It’s what happened after that we have little information about. It may have been something that happened after the initial note that resulted in them being denied service.
Stupidity is also a simple answer.
Possible motivations shouldn’t be hard to imagine. To help them lay a foundation for a lawsuit? Perhaps it was more benevolent and they sincerely wanted to draw attention to racial and religious profiling as an issue and needed an incident.
Maybe they just fucking lost it after being forced to exit the plane and their rage turned them into irrational non cooperative assholes, and later they were reluctant to admit it.
and fuck you. For the last several pages I’ve been responding to posts directed at me from multiple people simply defending my original position. I am not pretending to hold a position to evoke hostility from others. I am not irrationally challenging anyone. I’ve repeatedly said they may be right. I’d like to know how responding to others makes me a troll. I think this accusation just shows your ignorance.
Then please show me where I said or implied that the Imams story is much less likely. That was not my intention although it sure seems like thats the impression most other posters have gotten. I thought I made several efforts to say yes it might just be bigotry, and yes maybe the airline was dead wrong.
My intention since the beginning of this mess was only to say that we have limited info and it’s not conclusive. It’s a simple point but I’ve been asked to explain it and defend it over and over. I’ve been accused of defending the evil bigots at the airline simply for suggesting we don’t know for sure. Now I’ve even been accused of trolling by some idiot because I refuse to surrender my position.
Seriously. Please show me what indicated to you that I thought the Imams version was not likely?
I don’t think it’s much more likely because of the limited information we have and I’ve explained that several times. It’s that simple. I don’t agree. No big deal. I’m not defending the airline or accusing the Imams or insisting other posters see things my way. It seems instead that I am being piled on for not joining in with the groups condemnation of US air. It just isn’t that conclusive to me. If it becomes so I’ll have no problem saying you all were right and my proposed scenarios were all wrong.
I see that my scenarios seemed to have made things worse rather than helped. I was trying to demonstrate that the evidence wasn’t as conclusive as people thought because it didn’t rule out certain things. I still have a hard time figuring how the airlines silence condems them. It’s like the old movies. “Well sheriff, he ran away so he must be guilty” I thought the posters here were more reasonable than that. It would have been simpler to just say, I didn’t find the evidence conclusive and leave it at that i guess.
But my point remains the same and is unchanged. Without presenting any more scenarios I still say the evidence is limited and inconclusive to me. I’ve got too many unanswered questions to cry “bigots”
I hope that doesn’t disturb the sensibilities of the masses.
I can see I have to work on making my points more concise and clear. I didn’t link to those sites as reliable evidence. I’ve already said that so why not stop phrasing it as if I did. I may not agree with their conclusions but I do think some of the questions asked are legitimate, and should be answered before casting final judgment. It is precisely because I view the subject as a serious one that I feel that way. It is a difficult balance to find. We don’t want to promote religious profiling or widen the gulf created by irrational fear. Neither do we want to surrender our skepticism or vigilance to because we’re afraid of being called bigots and we hate that.
When someone is accused of being a bigot I take it seriously. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask if they were looking to provoke something and if so what were their motives. Even without a shred of evidence that they were I think their own cry of prejudice requires we ask that question and look for answers.
I think asking if the Imam spokesman had some association with others mentioned in the 9/11 report is also legitimate and a necessary part of vigilance. Not for the sake of harassment and intimidation, but just in being realistic about the possibilities.
Basically what I’ve done is say I’d like to hear more evidence and hear the accused side of the story before I cry bigot. What I get is people telling me I shouldn’t need to hear from the accused in order to cast judgment on them. Hearing one side of the story should be enough. How very progressive of our posters. It makes me warm all over.
Here’s why I’m calling you a troll: the malarkey you just posted above is no different than the rest of your posts in this thread. What possible legitimate reason could an airline have for ejecting people on the basis of their religion? When asked that question (or a similar one), you advance incredibly unlikely things that have no chance whatsoever of being the case. You fail to notice that the Imams are the accused side. The airline in question accused them of not being fit company for decent folk. The snide comments you’ve advanced just add to your lack of credibility here.
But the note only indicated paranoia by a passenger. Nothing in the note indicated anything actually “suspicious” beyond the fact that some goofball was afraid. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html
It was the Imams who were accused to be something that were not. And they were wronged in the end. Posts like your last one are the reason why I do agree more with Monty, when you resort to direct insults it makes your points on King and Gandhi that they “had to struggle with was to convince their own supporters not to return hate for hate, anger for anger, and resentment for resentment” to be just superficial, and you indeed show only a superficial understanding of what a monumental troll like action is to repeat arguments from ignorance. Repetition does not give it better odds. I don’t think you are Troll, but by considering very dubious sources and accusations from racists you argue like a Troll.
I agree. But once the note was passed I think the airline was obliged to look into it don’t you?
Then there’s the question of the crew and or other passengers voicing suspicions. Maybe it’s all just a smoke screen to cover their bad judgment. Maybe once the note forced them to ask the Imams to exit the flight things just spiraled out of control.
Look Tom I’ve said numerous times I don’t know. That isn’t so complicated is it?
Look into? Sure:
“Excuse me, sir, what ‘suspicious’ acts have they committed?”
“Well, they prayed to God in the language of their religion and they are [GASP] Arabic and they have seats on this plane.”
“Thank you, sir. And if you see anyone with a smoking shoe or a boxcutter, please call it to our attention, again.”
That would seem to be a good way to “look into” the matter.
I am not claiming you have an opinion regarding the imams, but when you come back to the thread to post that they were reported to behave suspiciously, I think it is only fair to point out that even their accuser could not point to an actual suspicious action.
We are in the pit. Don’t you consider **Monty ** calling me a troll a direct insult?
as far as Gandhi is concerned I believe he once said
“That Jinnah can kiss my brown Hindu ass”
maybe not
Yes I believe the Imams were wronged but they were not accused of anything that I can see. I can understand their outrage at the way things happened.
They are in fact openly accusing US air of racism and bigotry. I understand them feeling that way but it’s a serious charge that warrants serious questions and an investigation.
I think I understand what a troll is which is why I responded the way I did to the accusation. It’s total bullshit. You however have ignored my explanations to my links to those right wing sites and continue to misrepresent my use of them. Here once again. I’d say that might be a hint of trolling there but I’ll refrain from the accusation. I don’t think thats your intention or your motive. I think you just have poor reading comprehension.
The only argument I’ve repeated is that I don’t believe there’s enough info for me to cry bigot. I sure don’t think I need to apologize for that or waste any more time explaining to those who feel the need to hurl feeble bullshit childish insults.
:rolleyes: He was not the only one getting your “convincing” insults.
Sure, I misread your direct insults to me and you did not demonstrate poor reading comprehension by ignoring the racist language from those sites. :rolleyes:
Incidentally I said you argue like a Troll, but you are beginning to be one.
Saying to me that I have reading comprehension problems and yet I showed you missed that racist language does settle who really has the reading comprehension problem here. (Notice that I’m not calling you a racist, only a superficial assessor of the condition of your opponents points and arguments and your own)
Sure and I said that specifically in an earlier post. Ask the note passer what specifically were the suspicious acts.
“Well they were speaking angrily of US Arab policies.”
“One made a comment about about fulfilling the dictates of the Qua ran”
“They are indeed a group of Arab men several young enough to fit the terrorist profile” {do you now admit that?}
“They were together in the terminal but spread out to different sections inside the plane”
I don’t claim thats a lot. I think if one crew member then said, well yeah they were acting funny {whatever that means} and considering our current state, it might be enough to begin the shit storm that followed. Once the decision was made to question them the issue of the note passers irrational bigotry may have been sidelined by other events. Namely an angry extended shouting match.
I’m afraid I don’t agree. It seems to have stemmed from that one note but I’d like to hear from several passengers and some crew members.
I felt uncomfortable when they prayed out loud is not the same as I felt threatened by the details of their pre boarding conversation.
I have seen one guy who appeared to be “young enough” to fit the image of a hijacker (who was not also blind). The rest of them looked to be in their forties, at least, and no hijacker or suicide bomber in my memory has been that young–and none were accompanied by guys in their late forties or fifties.
And condemning Bush for the war in Iraq is hardly a passtime limited to al Qaida. No one has provided any details of their pre-boarding conversation that would be considered “threatening” by anyone to the left of Ann Coulter. The very fact that they were supposed to be openly critical of the U.S. administration argues against their having any intent to do harm, as an actual bomber, hijacker, or general evil-doer would be keeping his head down and trying to blend in.
Yes I called you dickweed. You started this little spree by making a false accusation against me and then fighting to not admit your mistake. Go back and read your own posts and see how many times you referred to my posts as BS or pulled out of my ass, or ignorant before I called you dickweed. Shouldn’t I find that kind of tone insulting?
AFAICT you used that tone because you couldn’t really mount a serious intelligent argument and felt that ridicule was an adequate substitute. It isn’t. Still isn’t btw.
I don’t see my arguments any more trollish than your own inane repetition of arguments from ignorance which still doesn’t make any sense to me. I resent the incorrect use of the term concerning my posts. You are free at any time to stop responding and I promise I won’t bother you any more with my ignorant BS. Sound fair?
•Profilng, using race as one factor in identifying a potential lawbreaker does not equal bigotry. (This is true whether the tactic is appropriate and effective or nonsensical and not.)
•While there are millions and millions of Muslims in the world and thier praying may not be noteworthy elsewhere, in a U.S. airport it is not a common occurence.
•The Rosa Parks analogy is inapt. No one thought that the bus might blow up if she sat in front of the bus. As far as I know, black people had not ridden in the front of buses before resulting in them blowing up.
•If we wait until a box cutter shows itself or a shoe is seen smoking ir might be too late. The idea is to stop those very things, and similar ones, from happening. Of course, some might be in favor of a full trial before anyone is yanked off a plane.
Miller, regarding this:
While it might not have been fair, or appropriate, given past events and the sum total of the actions here, I say it was understandable.
And while the Imams are of course free to handle this however they prefer, I still think it is not the most effective course of action. Obvioulsy, YMVs. I think we understand our differences on this point and should move on.
From the picture you linked to I see three guys who appear young enough. The stuff you mentioned is logical. I wouldn’t expect the average passenger or perhaps even the average airline employee to consider all those things in the boarding area and then completely dismiss any concerns they might have.
Separately none seem alarming. Together they might cause someone to wonder if they should say something.Obviously at least one person decided they should.
If you’re saying the airline officials should have know better I think I agree but I think they also might have to follow certain procedure once someone has raised a concern. I don’t think they can afford to simply blow it off.
