Two things:
To answer that particular query in #2, the pain and suffering would, of course, be the result of the prejudicial treatment in public. As businesses operate on finance, a financial award to those whom the business wronged is what’s needed to get the business doin the wronging to grok the idea.
From what I have seen there are certain requirements to be in an exit row. And the flight attendant checks against it. And even ask if you are up to the ‘duties’.
I always try to get a bulkhead or exit row because of how tall I am. I get it sometimes. But always have to be assigned to it.
I wonder if someone that was assigned an exit row, found a person in their seat. I don’t think I’ve ever been on a flight where these coveted rows where not taken by a seat assignment.
If I had an exit row and found someone sitting in my seat, I’d ask to see their boarding pass, compare it to mine and then if they would not move, I would report it. All the planes I have flown on have been quite crowded. So I would be taking someone else’s assigned seat. And so on, and so on and on.
Flight attendants don’t check to make sure everyone is in their assigned seat except perhaps in 1st class (AFAIK).
I’m hardly an experienced traveler. I fly about 2 times a year. Perhaps these gentlemen just took what ever seats they wanted and did not know that they had assigned seats. Perhaps the story is BS and there was no assigned seating at all, or they where in there assigned seats.
I’ve had enough of this “I’m so superior because I’m not prejudice” disingenuous crap.
If you are truly concerned with truth and justice* for all* I think thats great. How about you think about those words for a minute or two and stop the “I’m standing against bigotry” knee jerk bullshit.
the truth is you don’t know. None of the posters do. We’re getting a idea based on sketchy details and our own experiences.
My experience tells me that great people and/or liars come in all races cultures and skin tones, so don’t let your fear or distaste for the idea of racism make you a sucker in either direction. Judge the details of the situation and make a call. In this case it could still go either way. If you don’t think it’s possible that this is a set up or perhaps bad judgment on the Imams part then you need a shit load more experience about what people are capable of. You’re welcome to your opinion but your sarcastic remarks infer that those who disagree with you are paranoid idiots. Thats naive, disingenuous and just bullshit in general.
Yes I get that.
So the idiotic part is the implication that there were no damages?
Given ralphs previous post that may have been the intent. I didn’t read it that way.
The question is what are the details of why they were pulled off the plane, and why they were denied a flight afterwards. I’d love to see a real investigation including interviews by a reliable source out for facts.
Prejudiced. The word is prejudiced. I ignored it the first fifty times or so you typed it like that, but enough is enough.
The truth is, no one ever will have perfect knowledge of a given event. No matter what the subject or the context, we have to make our judgements based off the imperfect knowledge we have available to us. Given that none of us were actually there, and none of us will be in the courtroom if and when this goes to trial, we have to make our judgements based on the information available to us in the popular media. We have as much information on this case as we can reasonably expect, given the avenues of information available to us. To insist that we still do not have enough information to draw a conclusion is absurd. It removes us from the possibility of ever forming a judgement about anything we read in the news. Yes, it is entirely possible that additional information will be revealed at a later date, at which point our judgments can be re-evaluated, but until that happens, gassing on about what these guys might have really said, or why the airlines really refused them another flight (and refused to explain why) or wether these guys were really hoping for a confrontation is pointless masturbation. We don’t have any reason to believe any of that, we don’t have any evidence to support that. What we do have is a bunch of passengers reporting “suspicious” activity that was nothing of the sort, and an airline that’s decided to shaft a bunch of its paying customers for no discernable reason except to pander to the blockheads who kicked up a fuss in the first place. If you’ve got actual, objective evidence from a legitimate source, please present it. If all you’ve got is another spate of “What ifs,” please spare us all the effort of repeating them. This isn’t magical story time. We don’t need any fairy tales about what might have happened, or could have happened, or may eventually happen. We know, to a reasonable degree of certainty, what actually happened. We have more than enough information to draw conclusions. If you don’t feel comfortable making that judgement, fine, but fuck off with your “more worldly than thou” attitude. We’ve all brought our own personal experience to the table, here, and yours are not necessarily any more complete or relevant or accurate than ours.
You really do have a serious problem with the English language. There is no implication. If someone is discriminated against, that discrimination itself is damage. A result of the damaging act is pain and suffering.
I’d love to see you stop tad dancing. Doesn’t look like I’m going to get my wish.
Yes, me too. It’s very cruel to the baby frogs.
Post #326 is directed to cosmosdan. Tad dancing, of course, should be tap dancing.
I wasn’t aware of the political reputation of that paper. That makes me ignorant of that detail not an idiot.
The fact is your own cite contradicts your “nobody takes it seriously” remark in the political leanings section. Although it quotes strong words by ex reporter Brock it also says
I accept it has a strong conservative slant. That means I would view it’s “facts” with skepticism {as I did before your post} but that doesn’t mean I would summarily dismiss everything they say. There’s a lot of info in there supposedly from several sources that raise legitimate questions. It makes me want to know if it’s true, rather than assume none of it is.
Perhaps you’ve found consistent lies in the WT by your own research. Great. Allow me the chance to find out for myself.
So thanks for the link and the education , and as far as calling me an idiot goes
fuck you asshole.
Dude, I don’t know you from a bar of soap. I don’t think I’m superior to you in any way, but I do think that your arguments so far have not been very compelling and I find it a bit strange that you have felt it necessary to argue the same, mostly speculative, points several dozen times over the past few days without really bringing in anything new in all that time. I merely point out to that you could have made two or three posts posts, the thread would have been at least three pages shorter, and it would have had exactly the same level of content that it does right now.
If you buy any of the crap you’ve posted here concerning what the imams may have been up to, how do you account for several law enforcement agencies deciding, quite quickly, that they were no threat to anyone? Did these agencies make a mistake in letting them go so soon, do you think? If so, shouldn’t you be at least as enraged about this blunder as you are about anyone, like me, who happens to believe we should give them the benefit of the doubt for now?
For those who are trying to propose that this was all some sort of setup for a lawsuit: wouldn’t you WANT a lawsuit to go ahead? After all, if these guys, for some utterly unknown reason, actually planned this as an excuse to take USAirways to court, both side will have to present objective evidence in their favor, and the truth will out, right?
I get that it’s a biased conservative source. I wasn’t aware when I read it. Even then I didn’t accept the info as factual just worth checking since if even one or two of the points they make were true it would change things a bit.
I didn’t miss anything. I think your conclusions are reasonable. I think being so cock sure of them based on such limited and varied detail is ill advised.
What useless point are you trying to make here? It makes no sense. It says passengers and flight attendants told the police they were switching seats.
Duly noted
I’m not suggesting we suspend judgment completely or need perfect knowledge I’m saying it’s wise to consider the sketchy, incomplete inconsistent quality of the info we have. To say “I think X happened” is reasonable. To say “I feel strongly X happened” is okay. It’s your tendency to be so sure while sarcastically ridiculing opposing opinions that I find objectionable. Here you criticize me for supposing why the airline refused them another flight. You drew your conclusions from no information from the airline. Isn’t your “their silence speaks volumes” too much like “he ran away sheriff, he must be guilty” It’s a conclusion reached that reflects your bias rather than an honest assessment of the limited info we have.
The point is we have very little legitimate evidence from any source. When the details vary from article to article on what exactly provoked them being asked to leave the plane you may feel perfectly comfortable picking which points support your own biased conclusion and discarding the rest as “unlikely” but I do not. The fact that the details vary is evidence that more questions remain unanswered.
Believe me, thanks to sincere and decent posts by Revenant Threshold I see that my “what if” scenarios didn’t help. My point was always that the limited amount of info we have leaves a lot questions unanswered and options open. If you reread the first page of this thread you’ll see several other posters agree.
I don’t think my experiences are more worldly or superior. I mentioned them only to show I wasn’t pulling ideas out of air. I gladly listen to others experiences. When one poster mentioned experiences with prejudice I took that seriously. I understand and sympathize with that kind of emotional response. I don’t want my experiences to be dismissed or ridiculed so I don’t do that to others. Do you?
You crack me up. 
I have a problem? Where’s your reading comprehension or your ability to connect concepts?
Of course I know that if it was a clear case of prejudice they have every right to file a law suit and win.
If the airline had sufficient reason to question them based on security issues then it’s not prejudice is it? If the Imams were acting purposely to evoke some response and his insistence that they tried hard not to alarm anybody turns out to be a lie, it’s also not prejudice.
My question was why did ralph’s concept of an impending lawsuit evoke the fucking idiot response?
If your answer is, “It obviously prejudice” then thats your opinion and BFD. Thats not an answer.
Because I didn’t know the Washington Times rep??
I don’t frequent the political discussions too much and simply haven’t encountered it before. I’m a NYT reader or used to be.
I connect concepts that have even a remote chance of being connectable. The stuff you’ve posited here doesn’t.
Yeah, I’m aware of that. I hope you’ve noticed that I have only been responding to posts directed at me. I wish I had done so more concisely for sure. I’d also point out that the posters who felt compelled to criticize my posts also offered no new content.
Here’s a great example of what I was just talking about. Holy crap man. I thought you read the posts. I’ve already explained this at least a couple of times. I’ve been amazed at how many times I’ve had to repeat myself as people ignored or missed any point I was making. The law enforcement agencies concern themselves only with whether the activity is* illegal* or not. Are their outstanding warrants? Is there evidence of illegal activity? That is not the same air airport security asking someone to get off the plane for additional screening. The fact that no crime was committed doesn’t mean the airline had no right to question them. It also doesn’t speak to the issue of whether their were legitimate reasons to detain and question them. It only says no crime was committed. The police can detain and question me about some issue if they have any reason. If they release me it’s not an automatic assumption of my innocence.
If when the airline decided to confiscate my shampoo, deodorant, and aftershave I decided to get irate about it and argue the point what do you suppose would have happened?
Have I said anything to indicate I don’t favor a lawsuit? No not once.
I have doubts US air would go to court but I’d love to see that happen for the reasons you stated. Unfortunately they may choose to settle even if they’re in the right. As I said before. It shouldn’t be hard to imagine reasons the Imams might want to evoke some incident like this.
What I’d like to see is the airline lawyer or some diligent reporters interested in the truth do an extensive set of interviews among all {or most} the people involved to verify or dismiss under the weight of those interviews most of the details argued here. I doubt we will see that but I’ll do the dance of joy if we do.
So you say. Yet you’ve continually have responded to me by completely missing the point. If you’ve answered my question about ralph’s post I fail to see it. You’ve responded as if I am purposely being obtuse. My questions were sincere.
on another note, even without considering this thread, I am a hell of a tap dancer. Rumba like a madman as well. Arthur Murray, 7 years.
And they are ignored because by personal experience and other cases I can say you are wrong, erratic behavior or direct threats are considered by the police too. Worse than that, for terrorists, even a good suspicion is grounds for a longer arrest (the FBI was involved too)
Your demands that we should ignore what 2 or more security agencies did not find is exactly the same thing the prejudiced opinion pieces want all to assume. Since you are ignoring now that you agreed before with me that it is likely there is indeed a solution or amends to be made after an interrogation like that, I can say once again you really don’t care what you are saying, it seems you only agreed so the one that noticed a real reading comprehension problem on you could go away. Once again: you are considering rotten opinions and reports to obtain your “I’ don’t know” defenses. Not knowing even what the Washington Times was shows that you are the naive one.
Strangely enough this American Muslim
things there was paranoia among the passengers but the Imams were just plain stupid to pray out loud in the airport. Maybe some of you should write to him and tell him how his conclusions are all wrong. Shit! What does he know anyway?