Again, how? By praying? By criticizing the war? By asking for (gasp!) seatbelt extensions? By this logic no devout Muslim should be allowed to fly at all.
Calling for a boycott was not being understanding. IMO, them acknowledging that they understand that people are still frightened by 9/11, and a religion many Americans have little or no exposure to that was hijacked by the murderers, would have gone a long way to increasing acceptance of Muslims.
I think that it is safe to say that in our efforts to keep planes and the rest of our society safe, that innocent people will, from time to time, be questioned and inconvenienced. I do not think it reasonable to think that those in charge should have to be right 100% of the time. It was a mistake. A pain in the ass? Yes. Humiliating? Yes, but only if you let it be. Understand what transpired, suck it up and move on. That really is an option.
I also read, I forget where, that someone claimed that this showed that they didn’t have religious freedom in the U.S. Which is, of course, complete bullshit.
I think they have every right to be pissed at the inconvenience. Even at the accusations. But to paint this as if the actions of both the people and the airline were completely out of the blue, batshit unreasonable, how-dare-they…well, I think they’re wrong. And it ain’t gonna win them many friends.
Congratualtions, magellan01, for discovering how to use an on-line dictionary.
Of course, claiming that something was “hypotherical” when it was simply a misstatement of the facts does not promote your position.
You want the imams to be “understanding” of events when they are unreasonably detained, ejected from a plane in handcuffs, and refused further service on the same airline, not because they have made threats or brandished weapons, but simply because other fools are scared in their ignorance. You then want to turn around (because your claims are silly) and change the topic to a “hypothetical” situation that has no bearing on the actual situation.
(Yes, if someone actually boarded a plane “screaming ‘Allah Akbar’” it would be reasonable to remove them, NOT for the stupid belief that they were terrorists (who would not call attention to themselves) but simply because it appeard the person was menatlly deranged. I would expect the same treatment to be administered to someone “screaming” "Praise Jeeeesus!’ as they boarded a plane. Clearly, it has nothing to do with the current event.)
The actions taken are still not reasonable and you have still provided no reason for the imams to be “understanding” of the xenophobic actions to which they were subjected.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Yes, a good terrorist will act in a non-suspicious manner. They will be difficult to detect. They won’t be drawing attention to themselves in the way these imams were. Being observant doesn’t mean being ruled by our fears and prejudices. If there were any real terrorists in the airport, they were sitting quietly, inwardly laughing their asses off at this spectacle.
And, just FTR, I’ve gotten in heated political discussions in ariports.
Well, I realize that you are really not that bright… I guess you are oblivious to your surroundings…don’t blame me for being observant!
How is actually irrelevant.
They did NOTHING to CAUSE anyone to become suspicious. They were simply people whom some fools prefer to regard with suspicion.
(Even the silly seatbelt issue displays the fact that the “suspicion” originated among some xenophobic boobs: the photos of the couple imams who have made it to the internet show a couple of guys who clearly enjoy eating more than exercising. They probably do need belt extensions.)
You’re kidding me. Anyone who anyone else thinks is acting suspicious should be thrown off a plane? We don’t have to have any real reason at all? You can’t possibly mean this.
All I’m suggesting is that it is ridiculous to expect a passenger to be on the lookout for a terrorist prior to take off. We just have to trust airport security.
Well, yeah. That’s my point. These guys weren’t ejected because they were on some no-fly list or because some suspicious items were found in their possession. They were ejected because of some passenger’s paranoia. That ain’t right.
The dishonor just oozes from your being, doesn’t it? Well let me just say this, and please don’t take it the wrong way, go fuck yourself you dishonorable piece of shit.
Could a ritual duel be on the cards?
We sent all ours to America.
Or a ritual tarring-and-feathering, as someone is ridden out of town for personal insult to a mod?
Untrue. When the American colonies escaped from British thralldom, you sent some of them to Australia.
I think we’re allowed to insult mods in the Pit if they’re not acting as mods.
Not that i’ve ever insulted a mod, of course. cough.
He had no Mod hat on and this is the Pit. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to weasel that argument to the higher-ups. I have much more confidence that he’ll attempt seek that course of action instead of the duel RT brought up. The duel, after all, is viewed as an honorable way to settle things.
He’ll go on baiting me and I’ll continue to ignore him, until I see the dishonor ooze out. Then I will shine a light on the slime.
Ridden, maybe; sent out of town on a plane, not likely. Well, not if there’s tarring involved. Why, that’d darken the skin and thus raise suspicion.
Well, I’m fucked, then. Apart from the clean-shaven bit.
You sound like a 5 year old Klingon who’s losing a fight with an older warrior-in-training.
‘You are dishonourable! DISHOOOOONNNOOOOUUUUR!’