Six Imams Ejected for Praying

The BBQ Pit
281

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.
Right after 9/11 3 Arab men came into Circuit City and were looking at cell phones and video cameras and making suggestive comments such as “Does this video camera have night vision?” or “Can I get a very limited contract for this cell phone?” At the time I thought exactly what you’re saying now. If they were real terrorists they probably wouldn’t be so damed obvious. Still, they made enough of that type of comment to get someone to call the authorities. They were gone when the FBI showed up.
Was that bigotry? Were they purposely trying to stir some shit? I’m sure of it. I’m not at all sure of that concerning the Imams but neither do I dismiss the possibility.

282

Missed this bit:

Sure, lets ignore the context! Authorities were called to see if they were terrorists, they could fit the profile after all…

Here it has to be mentioned that I still follow logic: regardless if it was fear or bigotry they were detained to check if they were terrorists or even if they were a threat to airline personnel. This follows from reports the FBI and airline security were involved in the interrogation. It strains logic to assume the complaints from the airline were not investigated at that time, the fact they were let go shows the complaints were unfounded.

Bottom line: the imams were still accused by the airline of being or doing what they were not, even after authorities found them not to be a threat. And thanks to the info from tomndebb I can say it is likely there were lies or inaccuracies in the original complaints, so I have to say the Imams are more credible regarding acts **before the interrogation **. Remember that I insisted that finding good evidence or solutions only can be seen after the interrogation. You need to realize that the efforts of all dopers here (even you) have convinced me now that even the idea we should gave the airline the benefit of the doubt on the acts before the interrogation to be suspect too.

No small feat.

283

:rolleyes: considering that you said:

(You can dish out, but you can not take it) As I see on the lack of confirmation, your ideas do remain BS.

To repeat:

You deserve ridicule when you show how superficial you are on your assessments. One of your insults came when I quoted your own words and showed you really do not care what you are saying, like your latest “not to return hate for hate, anger for anger, and resentment for resentment”. Can you feel the love coming from you? :slight_smile:

As long as you stop considering lousy cites (from ignorant sites) in your possibilities, OK.

284

Admittedly, I was a tad busy with college at the time; however, I was–and remain–a news junkie. I don’t recall seeing that in the news. Could you provide some more details such as which Circuit City and if the persons making the report were found to be reliable?

285

I don’t think they should blow it off, either. However, I have already noted the follow-up in which they should have engaged.

Despite the claims of some people, I, who rarely fly, have been in airport concourses when various groups (including Muslims) havve engaged in public prayer. There is no example of a group of hijackers or suicide bombers who have included members as old as some of that group in the group, regardless whether one or two might be “young enough” to be considered suspect. There is no example of a group of hijackers or bombers calling attention to themselves through prayer or public discussion. Based on the idea that the airline has to “follow up” on any paranoid fantasy, then we should soon face the grounding of most flights every time anyone expresses concern over some other passenger, even when they provide no reasons to support their paranoia.

And, clearly, the police forces (FBI and local) in Minneapolis have demonstrated incompetence by carrying out groundless interrogations despite having been notified, in advance, by the “suspects” that they would be traveling in exactly the manner in which they were traveling.

286

OK.

Here’s a good example of where you started off merely examining possibilities, and then veered into suspecting the Imams of duplicitiousness (my bolding);

You said several times that you’d had experience of people being annoyed by bad service, and that an aggressive/violent response was a likely, if not expected, result;

You’ve also gone into specifics of the situation, pointing out logical inconsistencies about the Imam’s story while dismissing any flaws in your scenarios;

You’ve said all throughout that you’re unwilling to make conclusions based on little evidence, and that’s admirable. What isn’t so admirable is that you’re willing to accept your scenarios as being much more likely than they are, based on seemingly just your own experiences. And I know, your response will be “I’m not making conclusions!”. I get that. My point is; your experiences appear to be skewing your view towards “the Imams are likely to be lying” to the point where you cited a rabid right-wing site to back you up (though to your credit, you did take that back when called on it) and skewing you away from “The airline was wrong” scenarios.

287

even though they were questioned for what someone called suspicious actions , which indeed may not have been, the fact remains they were not accused of anything by the airline or the authorities AFAICT. There is a major difference and it’s an important one. If they were charged with something and then later released that would have been being accused of something.

They were detained and questioned for security reasons. That is not an official or even non official accusation. If I get pulled over and have to preform a sobriety test thats not an accusation. It’s an officer doing their job.

Sorry, I don’t see any indication that the airline accused them of anything. I’m sure it felt that way to them as it would to me. The note can be called an accusation and might be total bullshit. If an officer is called because someone suspects group X of possibly being a threat the officer is preforming his duty by questioning them. He is not accusing them. See the difference?

288

Oh no my friend. I can take it and dish it out. Both you and Monty insulted me before I responded in kind. You’re the one whining about it now.

I don’t consider offering a possible scenario as BS and I made several attempts to explain why.People were drawing conclusions from very limited evidence. I was only trying to show other possibilities. I can honestly see why you might think so. I sure see that they didn’t help the discussion. I’ve already said. I now believe I should have just said the limited information is inconclusive. In reading the thread again I see several posters said that same thing early on.

Your tone was one of ridicule posts before I insulted anyone. I confess to being a human being and when people insult me I might react with frustration or anger. I’ve said it’s an issue we need to work on. That includes me. Anger is something that happens among humans. Do we cling to it, embrace it, nurture it into lingering resentment, or just express it and then let it go, ready to forgive others and ourselves. Comon now…give us a hug! :slight_smile:

Sigh…I did preface that post with a question “Is it possible” which indicates I’m not offering it as evidence but only considering the question. I’m not a fan of Orielly or Limbaugh but if one of them makes a valid point or poses a valid question I’m willing to admit it. I don’t think I brought right wing cooties to the discussion just by linking to them.

289

It was the Circuit City right here in Nashville, and I was there at the time. I don’t know if it made the papers or the news. There was a lot going on at the time.
Believe it or not.

290

Okay Tom. You’ve made some excellent points. I bookmarked the Minneapolis paper so I could try and follow up on it but it may fade all to quickly.

291

There is no example of a group of hijackers or bombers calling attention to themselves through prayer or public discussion. Based on the idea that the airline has to “follow up” on any paranoid fantasy, then we should soon face the grounding of most flights every time anyone expresses concern over some other passenger, even when they provide no reasons to support their paranoia. Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW? suppose al-Queda issues orders to its members, along these lines:
“In the name of allah, the merciful: the zionist dogs and crusaders have learned to suspect our martyrs who wear werstern dress and drink the evil alcohol. We must now instruct all martyrs that henceforth, we shall be dressed as in the holy land. may the zionist dogs weep as their airplanes crash and burn, and may the righteous enter paradise!”

292

Thanks sincerely. I was surprised by the reaction to my posts. It seemed like a simple one. I think I understand a little better now.

I don’t think suggesting they may have been royally pissed at being taken off the plane and may have reacted with a lot of anger is suggesting duplicitousness. Just humanity.

What does your own experience tell you? I’ve been in public service for some time so maybe my perspective is different, but it shouldn’t stretch the imagination too much to think they reacted with outrage. Thats why I asked about the cuffs. If they refused to leave the plane then security has to insist and cuff them. That escalates the problem. Again, thats not their fault or suggesting they planned it. Just an observation about human nature.
I confess that suggesting they refused to fly US air and then blamed the airline is baseless. Not impossible but baseless and not helpful to the conversation.

I see how it might be taken that way. My point all along was only to show that we had limited info and there were other possibilities.

I see your point and appreciate the time you took to make it. In my defense nothing here indicates I thought my scenarios were much more likely. In fact I made several statements indicating that was not the case. I was asked to defend what I thought was a simple obvious point. I see how my repeated defense of that point {insufficient evidence} might be interpreted as my defense of those scenarios as more likely. That is not the case
i also said

293

So, ralph124c, I guess we can put you down for supporting the grounding of all flights any time some idiot chooses to indulge his or her paranoid fantasies regarding any person whom he or she believes to be Arabic.

From my perspective, you have surrendered to the terrorists. They did not even win a battle, you just up and surrendered.
Note that I have not called for a loosening of security in seeking weapons. I have not called for the elimination of thorough (not merely ethnic) profiling by professionals trained to recognize people who are likely to be terrorists. I have simply explained that it is foolish to shut down our air system every time some panicked passenger gets the willies. Your response appears to be that shutting down the air system for silly fears is a good thing. Your choice; I hope that we don’t follow that path.

294

In pursuit of more details I found this which is only opinion but I thought this bit was interesting.

and

granted it’s only hearsay.
My questions is does this alter your opinion to any degree about the truthfulness of the Imam who claimed that they had gone to great lengths to remain nonthreatening?
Do you think it’s just BS?

295

here’s another article. Basically it says there are mixed reactions to the incident.

One girl said

while her boyfriend said

here’s a comment from a Muslim

296

Giving a symbolic hug in passing :slight_smile: , but I’m still wondering why it is important to bring forth opinions from people that were not present.

As for the previous post, besides hearsay, I don’t think that was BS, just a misleading opinion. Notice the glaring omission of the refusal of service by the airline after the interrogation, and the interrogation for that matter. Anyone can see then only that by omitting those items that the author of the opinion piece sounds reasonable, until you realize that he is telling only half of what was reported, not the whole truth.

297

I’m willing to believe that Dr. Shahin is spinning his side of the story to put his group in the best light possible.

Of course, I have a bit of trouble accepting the columnist’s xenophobia as worth much.

The group was heard “speaking in Arabic.” Yep. They already “confessed” to praying before boarding the plane–and Muslim prayers are recited in Arabic.

One of them said “Allah, Allah.” Pretty nasty situation we’ve got when a person (especially a religious leader) actually calls on the name of God before a flight. (Then the idiot columnist actually says “Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the person who was overheard chanting ‘Allah, Allah’ was actually saying something else.” Why? Saying “something else” would be more suspicious, not less.)

And, of course, there is the absolutely damning “One was heard to declare that he would do whatever was necessary to fulfill his obligations under the Qur’an.” Imagine! The nerve! A religious leader saying that he was prepared to follow his obligations as set forth in his Scriptures! (Without a single explanation of what those obligations were perceived to be. If that was the “threat,” then the listener should have some idea what was being threatened.)

Then we get “(a fellow passenger understood Arabic and was one of those who contacted a flight attendant).” Excuse me? A whole week after the incident, we get one unsupported claim that “someone” knew Arabic and was among those who “contacted” the attendant? If something was going on, why do we not get a report (preferrably from the police report or an actual interviewed witness) explaining just what was being said, rather than the vague “speaking Arabic” which would have still been consistent with the prayers chanted before boarding.

With all this new (and still unsupported) information, where are the threats? Where is the evidence that they threatened to take down that flight on that night? Where are the angry condemnations of the passengers or the airline? Where is the direct anger expressed toward their fellow passengers?

We’re still stuck with paranoid Yanks overreacting to a bunch of guys they don’t understand (as though a handful of overweight, middle-aged guys and a blind man without weapons could overpower 140+ people on a plane, most of whom have probably already been inspired to resistance by United 93), a police force that does not bother to track efforts to communicate with them, and an airline that will not let a group to whom they have refused service make a later flight while refusing to provide a reason.

298

Since this is the Pit. I like to think of them as a bunch dumbass bigots who are now being defended by a bunch of dumbass bigots.

299

I can accept that. Dumbass bigoted Yank passengers being defended (not by cosmosdan) by other dumbass bigots.

Not the words I’d have used, but I am willing to accept them from another source. :smiley:

300

This has happened.