Slashdot Mirror
Overzealous AirTran Boots 9 Passengers Off
An anonymous readerwrites "On Friday the wonderfully customer centric AirTran decided to remove a family of 9 US born Muslims after a comment between two family members regarding how close to the Jet engine they had been seated. The wonderful part is that after the FBI cleared the family 2 hours later, AirTran refused to fly the family, and refused to rebook them on their way from Washington to Orlando, Florida. The family purchased additional tickets on US Airways later that day, after AirTran requested that the irate father be escorted from their booking podiums by security. This whole story highlights the pathetic customer service we are getting from the Airlines these days — they actually treat us like criminals first and ask questions later. Just don't get me started on Delta." It's nice to see that stupidity still knows no bounds.
Apparently, they have now received a refund:
Linky
AT&ROFLMAO
I'm glad the summary specifies that they were born in the US. Because otherwise it would be okay to treat them like dirt, right?
The only reason not wanting to fly next to the engine is a "security issue" is BECAUSE they were Muslim. If anyone else brought it up, the attendant would have sold them earplugs for $5.
That should be AirTran, not AirTrans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I smell big discrimination lawsuit coming.. too bad airliners are broke as they are already.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
It just shows how much of what we go through is security theater. If they were really secure harmless comments about the engines or even bombs wouldn't matter as you couldn't get one on anyway. It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people. Real terrorists aren't going to make jokes.
They weren't talking about security, they were talking about general safety. Wouldn't you like to know where the safest place to be sitting on a plane in event of a crash purely mechanical in origin?
Laissez-faire types will hate me for suggesting this, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. We make a big deal out of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment and housing, so why not in transportation? It's because Muslims are all terrorists... innit?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
..that the "real terrorists" didn't succeed in their plots to "terrorize" Americans.
I mean, he DID say, "Look at how close to the engine we are, isn't that convenient?"
"Now no one will hear the explosion over the sound of the engine!"
The idea alone that you can remove from a plane for making conversation about a plane. There where even two air marshals on the plane - if it was that big of a concern, i'm sure the marshalls could have handled it.
In any case, what's it like being an idiot? They didn't shout about how convienient it is that they where so close to the engine - it was a discussion about "if the plane crashes, would we be better or worse off near the engine?"
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
I bet the xenophobic idiot who reported their 'suspicious comments' is pleased with themselves, having delayed their flight by 2 hours.
All they did was wonder aloud what the safest place to sit on an airplane would be. Some racist idiot thought they heard "I wonder what the safest place to sit on an airplane is when there's a bomb onboard" which is patently ridiculous, as there is obviously no safe place to sit in that situation. They were not discussing security, they just happened to sit next to an engine and wondered about the safety of that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Be careful what you say at airports and on planes. Never get irate or argue at airports and on planes. My mother who is white, has made both mistakes and ran in to similar reactions from airline and airport employees.
I read about this. Someone remarked that they were sitting right by the engine. That's all it took and 9 were booted off. Pathetic. So much for freedom of speech. They wouldn't let them rebook either. I know this I will never conform to what other people want me to be so you might as well just shoot me in the head like cattle and get it over with.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
But that was said in the old, innocent days. If he were still alive, probably would add something about the order of infinite that describes human stupidity.
My experience with AirTran was the worst flight I've ever been on. Bastards left us stranded in Atlanta for 8 hours.
I'd never fly on that airline again even if the ticket was free.
Those signs reduce safety. They are basically "massacre zone" signs, where someone who wants to kill people is pretty sure of getting the fewest number of people legally carrying guns.
I wish that if a business that was open to the public wanted to post those signs, they would have to have a certain number of armed guards per square feet at all times during normal business hours. Basically, have people provide their own security, or don't allow that and pay for it.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people.
In a place like the USA or Afghanistan where people do tend to carry guns, signs like that make it easier to distinguish between gun carriers who are not going to cause trouble and those who are.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Actually, you misread. The article at CNN explicitly stated: "The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Atif Irfan said."
See linky: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/02/family.grounded/index.html
Not to mention that merely saying the word bomb and attack is not cause for concern. Are we really less capable than the various chat bots for understanding context?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
About a year ago I read about a flight which had to be abandoned because a passenger found the word Bomb written on one of the safety instruction sheets inside the aircraft. I think pretty much any conversation could be misconstrued in that way.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I just dread the day terrorists start pulling bombings of buses or trains or truck weigh stations or busy freeways or malls or what-have-you in the US. Because that day, all the stupidity we see in airports and airplanes will be copied into those venues too.
Unless, of course, we as a people finally pull our heads out instead.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
How so? Most registered gun carriers I know completely ignore those signs that say 'no guns'. These are law-abiding citizens.
My blog
The article does not say that the airline paid for the other flight. It says that the airline offered to pay for the other flight. I'm guessing that the offer requires the family to release the airline of all liability.
Also, other reports stated that the airline was refusing to pay the family's extra cost of taking the other flight, which implies that the offer only came after this became a national news issue. In other words, the offer of a refund only came about because people did not get over it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I'm reasonably sure in Europe you could be sued if you refused to carry someone based on their religion or racial background - I have a feeling this is true in the US also ? If so, I hope they take this stupid airline to the cleaners. Even setting the obvious discrimination aside, there was no excuse for denying them travel given that the FBI had cleared them.
Is there any indication if the decision to not let them back on the plane after the FBI okayed them was made by a low or high level employee?
If some clerk/pilot made the call, then there's no indication it's "systemic" with the airline, and they can be fired and we can see if the problem goes away. However, if a higher-up in AirTran made the decision, there may be a real reason for backlash from the Muslim community (or anyone that disapproves of racism).
I was born in the 80s so I don't know what the days were like in this country when "blacks" had to sit at the back of the bus, but man this whole anti-muslim thing, while not believed by a majority of Americans, is still prevalent enough for me to not want to be a Muslim living in this country. And a race of people not wanting to live in this country due to prejudice is the opposite of the American Way, and is the opposite path to us maintaining our world strength.
So let me get this straight, you get on a plane and share your opinion that you'd rather not sit next to the engine, because it's not a safe spot in an accident, and you expect to be taken off of the flight, reported to the FBI, and embarrassed by being refused to be allowed back on or to take another flight later on despite the fact that you've been screened a second time and cleared by the FBI.
That, according to you, is a level headed response? An appropriate response?
Are you one of those folk who complain that rape victims had it coming, they should have known not to do whatever it was that caused them to catch the rapist's eye?
The passengers were at fault for being racists and reporting a non-issue. The airline was not at fault for handing the matter over to the FBI when the issue was reported. The FBI did the right thing by clearing the family. However, the airline WAS at fault for refusing to let the family fly on any future flight even after they had been cleared by the FBI. There's no legitimate (non-discriminatory) reason to do that given the circumstances.
These people likely had their whole vacation planned, and this incident screwed up their plans. One article said they were going to a religious conference, and it's unlikely that conference was delayed while they tried to make other travel arrangements. On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.
They have good cause for a lawsuit against the airline, and I think they should file one. I'm not talking millions of dollars here, but the airline needs to get slapped in court to make them think twice next time a situation like this crops up.
The fact that incidents like this keep happening show that bin Laden and his cohorts succeeded beyond their wildest dreams on 9/11.
So the ignorant behavior of some passengers completely excuses the employees in the airline and airport for their behavior?
Perfect example of an idiot in action. That whole scene illustrates how somebody's preconceptions and stereotypes can affect their perceptions of reality.
The marshals on the plane should have been smart and mature enough to see through that crap after 2 minutes of talking with that family.
That is what we should be thinking of. But what we often think of is if discriminating against 1000 of the 'other' is what it takes to save my family, my job, the status quo, then what do I care. As long as I am ok, the so be it.
I am sure that some in new york, as was posted in response to a recent Schneier blog, would say hey, you were obviously not around the twin towers when they fell, otherwise you would feel different. What if they had not allowed any dark people on the plane. Then it would have never have happened. QED, discrimination justified.
People, kids, family will say thigs. I see people praying, and it does not mean they are going to crash a plane. Just because you have nail poiish does not mean you are going to make a bomb. For some strange reason, we do not approach every redneck in a pickup truck loaded with fertilizers and take them down to the Homeland security for integration.
However, given that profiling does appear to be a recognized method to stop even the most rare of crime, and given that we want a security system that eliminates all crime no matter what, even at the cost of freedom, here is my suggestion to all those nations outside the US. The cities of Destroit, Baltimore, St. louis, Newwark, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, all have hugely high murder rates. to the point where maybe one out of every hundred people is a murderer, assuming that each person commits murder only once during their life, likely during 20 and 50. It would therefore be prudent to restrict travel by anyone who has ever lived in these cities. This shouldn't be a big problem, except for washington. Philidelphia is the only city with more than a million people who have an obscenely high murder rate. Most larger cities have about half the murder rate of Oakland. I certainly would feel much safer on an airplane knowing that I am not traveling with a passenger from these cities.
Of course, given that it is more likely that I will killed in a car accident than in a terrorist attack, we could chill and try to save democracy from the fear mongers.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I really hope this ends up being a landmark case for racial profiling. I'm rooting for colossal punitive damages, personally.
Not always. In many cities, it is illegal to carry firearms into certain places by city ordinance even if you would otherwise be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Typically these are places such as hospitals, schools and bars.
On a more on-topic note, I think AirTran deserves a hefty lawsuit. This was very clear cut racism. There was no indication any one of the 9 persons were a threat to anyone. Just a refund doesn't seem to fully compensate them for the harm done.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
That's what they'd do!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane, and other people heard them,
Other people heard them, misconstrued them. It just so happened these people were of Muslim faith and appearance. It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions.
So wait, you can't talk about airport security at the airport? That's all I talk about on the airlines. After hours of waiting, being stripped of liquids for no reason, having to take of your shoes, it kind of is the elephant in the room.
It seems likely that they were given special attention because of their appearance, accent, culture, et cetera. Personally, I'm not expecting anyone, especially the airline to admit this.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
I bet the xenophobic idiot who reported their 'suspicious comments' is pleased with themselves, having delayed their flight by 2 hours.
I bet it was a 9/11 hero Wanna Be who thought that he could foil a terrorist plot and get his 15 minutes of fame. Don't underestimate a person's desire to be a "hero", to feel important, and be a media whore.
Minnesota Public Radio's "The Story" show with Dick Gordon did a piece on Mohamed Fikry, an almost 5 million mile customer with American Airlines... and they pulled the SAME CRAP. Twice! Once because a customer heard him speaking "a foreign language on the phone" (it was Spanish) and once because a flight attendant thought she'd seen him "backstage". 5 Million Miles! with the same airline... And to top it off, they had the FBI pull him from the plane AFTER they flew to the destination! If he were such a threat, why let him fly at ALL... Gotta love airline customer service. Link to the story http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_669_Business_Class_Terrorist.mp3/view
Because us Whities never had our asses kicked and paper-route money stolen and routinely fucked with by all the minorities in the neighborhood!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
..as long as people keep putting up with it and standing in the big brother check-in line and handing over their money for an airplane ticket. Don't talk! Don't make eye contact with the darth vader goon! Don't do anything while your spouse and children are felt up by the pervos working there! Obey your superior humans, epsilon!
The only thing that is going to work to get some sanity back to airline travel is mass universal boycott and shun the airlines and their hired security goons and pathetic security theater policies. You certainly aren't going to "vote" for anything better. If millions put up with this creeping fascism, and keep getting on those planes and "willingly" subject themselves to all this crap, sure as shit you'll get full fascism eventually. You've -the still flying public "you"- have already proven you'll put up with half way there, no one who flies is showing any different to the global overlords, and they are pleased to have such willing and compliant subjects to rule over.
All being born in America means to me is that it was more likely this family escalated this incident, rather than remaining calm and going through the indignities we all have to face sooner or later with air travel. I love the US and defend it from the usual haters here, but let's face it; "But I'm an American, you can't do this" is a cliche. Part of it is the freedom we enjoy (yes, relatively, we do, despite the constant barrage of YRO scare stories here). Another part is arrogance and ignorance caused by a lack of travel by the average American. And I do see a change in America in the last decade from "question authority" to "challenge it at every turn." Americans increasingly do not like authority, and I include myself in this.
One thing working for the legal office of a major city defending police lawsuits taught me is that there are often two sides: That which the media reports, invariably the plaintiff attorney's version (a role I have played as well), versus the rest of the facts that come out once the dust has settled. Often, the potential defendant does not comment to the media for liability reasons, letting the plaintiff side dominate the news cycle.
If the airline in fact acted as the article portrays, F them. But let's hear all the facts before we call this a vast racially-based evil act by the airline. My experience tells me that sometimes that can take years and a civil trial that ends with a defense verdict before all the facts come to light. And I say this as someone who has sat in a conference room with people literally screaming to tell their side to the media, only to be muzzled by counsel in anticipation of litigation.
Now once again mod me troll for a well-reasoned, informative post that dares dissent from the racist airline meme du jour.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
If the law-abiding citizens enter somebody else's property with a gun against the owners wishes, I don't want to know what the criminals do.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The airline shares fault for the initial report to the FBI as well as it's subsequent stupidity. If some kook reports (quite sincerely) that the bozon count is way too high in the cabin, will the airline pass that along to the FAA? Will the flight be canceled just in case? Will they strip the plane to it's airframe looking for the bozons? I don't think so!
The FBI did do the right thing.
Most likely, they are told by Homeland Security policies to "respond to all complaints" no matter how ridiculous.
AirTran would have called the authorities to report the incident. If they don't get an "all clear" back, then normal CYA procedure would dictate that they don't let the people fly. It sucks, it makes no sense, but that is probably the policy, that has been thrust upon ALL of our Airline agencies.
Blame the thought challenged leadership for our crap-tastic security that only seems to do anything where we can see them, and does nothing where we can't.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
These are law-abiding citizens.
Except that they enter private property in direct violation of the posted conditions for entry. IANAL, but I think that makes 'em trespassers.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
The slave trade was a free market, from what I can remember, and the government had to shut it down because it was still enormously profitable to capture and breed humans.
If the free market had no rules, there would still be segregated restaurants and buses in the south. That's a big difference between democracy and fascism. One the people can change, the other only the business elite can change. Without a bloody revolution, of course...
I think the family should also be able to file a lawsuit against the idiots that started the mess (the asshole passangers) and the Airmarshals that backed them up instead of telling them to grow the fuck up and use the grey squishy thing between their ears.
Whether allowing pilots that degree of individual unrestricted discretion is a wise idea or not should probably be debated.
This is racial profiling pure and simple. The irony is that any one of the Caucasian males between the ages 18 and 32 on the plane could very well have had a series of dead teenage girls buried in their back yard...
...are the new black.
In all likelihood, if I were to talk to the person next to me about where the safest place in the plane was, the next person over would join in and tell us what they thought. But I'm not Muslim, and don't look like an arab. It sounds like (from other reports, not just the /. article) that people freaked because of the people looked and sounded different than because of any real threat.
Our intervention in the middle east over the past 200 years has bread suicide bombers who want us the fuck out of their lives. Not the religion.
Got a reference, bub?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence
There are many terrorist organizations which are not religious.
In fact, one could argue that a majority of the religious terrorism in the middle east is actually nationalist terrorism disguised as religious extremism. If you look at the causes which drive people to the al-qaida bootcamps: oppression (by US forces or otherwise - AQ was not active in Iraq before we had a military presence there), lower standards of living, and so forth. People turn to religion when times get tough. Other people use that to twist the religion. They convince people at the end of their rope that the only thing that will make things better for them, their family, and their country is to go blow up the people fucking them over.
The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback.
That depends on the design of the aircraft and the nature of the crash.
Mind you, near an emergency exit is probably a good rule of thumb in most aircraft.
When coming back on leave from Iraq, I was flying in my ACU uniform. Being searched by a muslim TSA lady while coming through security I had to laugh at the irony.
But I kept my mouth shut aside from a sincere "have a nice day, ma'am" when it was over. Idiocy can strike anywhere, any time, to anyone.
Why is this on /.?
THL phish sticks
They booked their tickets online.
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
Did we just extend the War on Terror?
How many Muslims have you met wearing a 'towel' on their head?
maybe they were whispering to each other,
If so, thank you! I can't stand a group of 9 people talking to each other and competing to be heard.
maybe they had no baggage,
What is so suspicious about this? Maybe they already checked it. Maybe they decided they'd save $15 x 9 (x 2 for both ways) and go to their destination bag-less. I do this if I want to save some time getting on and off the plane. Over-paranoia by others is probably what got them kicked off the plane.
Who decided to 'pull the plane over' and kick them of? The pilot.
Who pays the pilot? The airline.
Who decided, once they were cleared by the FBI, that they couldn't get back on that plane? The airline.
Who decided, once they couldn't get on that flight, that they couldn't get on any AirTran flight? The airline.
Do I give a fuck about the other passengers or what they may or may not have started? No. The world is full of clueless twits. The difference between them and the airline's clueless twits is that they weren't the ones exerting their authority in the matter to make things worse.
or maybe they just didn't like the crappy seats. Engine seats are noisy and cramped and you get no outside view for the kids. OK if you're a geek with noise-canceling headphones and electronics... annoying for everybody else.
Nobody would have gotten this treatment unless another passenger thought they looked dangerous. It was a frightened, idiotic, racist passenger who called a flight attendant. I'm glad the passenger who squealed was majorly inconvenienced as well, maybe they will think twice before opening their yaps next time. I mean, what did they think would happen, the family would be removed and the flight would leave on time?
I could talk all day about the safest place to sit on an airplane and not have problems. The fact that they looked 'middle eastern' is what caused them problems. You can bet your ass that if ANY nine people had been kicked off a plane anywhere in the US, it would be news.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First off, this WAS DISCRIMINATION and RACISM!...PERIOD
Second off, NOTHING that the airlines are doing accounts to a RATS ASS at improving ANY air security. NOT THE TSA, NOT THE FBI, NOT THE AIR MARSHALLS...NOTHING!
What HAS helped are two things: First the cabin doors are hardened and second, the pilots have to IMMEDIATELY put the plane on the ground in case of ANY hijacking or other problem!
If these two policies wewre in place on 9/11/2001, both planes from Boston would have landed in Providence or Hartford and NOTHING would have happened to the Trade Center towers! NOTHING would have happened to the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA would have landed in Pittsburgh safely.
The whole thing of 'airline security' is a money wasting bullshit facade-and the people involved take themselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY!!
That would be fun to watch. Does the state/city (Arlington, VA ??) where it occurred have hate speech laws?
if you are a Muslim and the Muslims are known for acts of suicide terrorism...
People keep talking about how Muslims are known for acts of terrorism. Why is it that the first thing that comes to mind when you see some Muslims is, "oh shit they might blow something up"? Why not Latinos/South Americans? Ever heard of Orlando Bosch or Luis Posada Carilles? They've done some crazy shit. What about Israelis? Israel violates the Geneva Conventions constantly and frequently engages in large-scale terrorism (such as what they're doing right now).
On one hand we are outraged by these events but on the other hand we allow our government zero tolerance for terrorist events or accidents to happen. If you want to be safe, you have have to sacrifice liberty.
I don't remember ever hearing anyone ask our government to clamp down on our civil liberties, except maybe some commentators on CNN and Fox News. When people blame the US government for terrorism, it's never in the context of "hey you gave us too much liberty you assholes!" Most of the complaints I read and agree with are things like, "Hey, stop bombing the fuck out of countries and instilling hatred for us among their people you assholes!"
http://spaz.mindstab.net/indian_orly.jpg
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
I believe this has to do with the scarf-like accessory arab women wear. I saw the family in question, and if not for the garb, they'd look like any other (minority) American. When in Rome -- stay away from the 2-buck whores, right -- but otherwise, do as the Romans.
People should be aware of the situation around them, if you have a daughter I'm sure you'd not be OK with her going half-naked at a late hour in a bad part of the city with some drunk "friends". If she gets raped it would not be "her fault" (I also think that people in general have a problem with the concept of "fault", but that's for another discussion), but as I said, people have to be aware of circumstances and act accordingly.
And to make things clear, that I'm not a Taliban, I do support the right of women to go completely naked, nothing wrong with that. I also support the right of people to leave valuable goods in unlocked car and the key in the ignition -- people should be free to do that, it's obviously not their fault if somebody breaks the law and steal their property...
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Of course it's alright! They were only following orders!
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
How so? Most registered gun carriers I know completely ignore those signs that say 'no guns'. These are law-abiding citizens.
And you said that without a trace of irony? Wow. Just wow.
Don't fly next to an engineer. I constantly talk through failure modes. How much weight the joints have to handle.
And how C students usually get a job somewhere.
Where's the online aspect of this story?
There are about 30 other news outlets that aren't nerd-oriented that are carrying this story well. What is slashdot adding by featuring it?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
It only makes them trespassers if they are asked to leave and they don't. It would be like a sign reading "boxers only: no brief wearers allowed". Easily ignored. If they then ask you to leave, then you have to leave.
The stated purpose of most laws, including gun laws, is the intention of reducing crime.
However, we have been given precedent, at the highest levels, that maybe laws (or the constitution) don't matter, if your intentions are good. For example, see how politicians try to satisfy the intent of certain rules, while ignoring the letter of the law.
Seems to me, a law abiding citizen ignoring a few laws that aren't intended for them are doing less harm than those politicians.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
For the record, I think that "terrorists" have seriously considered the airplane suicide bombing to be so 2001. If they were seriously thinking about killing masses of people they would go with the new trend of remote detonated car bombs. It's been "in" since the Iraq war, and there is NO security measures implemented against it (sound familiar?).
Help fight spam
The airline messed with the wrong family; the father is a lawyer. This will be an interesting story to follow.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
1) A white family of nine people get on a plane.
Well, I tossed an exception right there. White family of nine . . . that's actually really funny!
Wait,
PolygamousRanchKid doesn't know about Mormons?
A bit of research through the Consumerist (just bought by Consumers Union, yay!) reveals that AirTran fouling up like this is nothing new.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Kaffiyeh. They're fairly fashionable at the moment round where I am (Manchester UK).
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
First of all, I assume you mean that they were biased against Muslims. Islam is not a race. Secondly, an increased sensitivity to Muslims as security risks on airliners is a completely rational bias. As you may be aware there are several large Islamic organizations openly calling for the killing of Westerners and other non-muslims, particularly in suicide missions, and airliners have been a historically preferred target. No one should be denied service because of their ethnicity or religion. But, as politically incorrect as it sounds, an airport security guard who doesn't divert a little more attention to Islamic-looking passengers is being negligent. It's Bayesian probability.
I think the blame should be distributed entirely differently. The airline DID clear the family to fly once they had heard back from the FBI that they had been cleared, through the appropriate channels. There was apparently some delay in word getting back, and the situation was apparently exacerbated by one of the family members throwing a fit at the ticket counter. But once they heard they cleared him, and they also offered to fly them back home for free. There was no fault by the passengers. They are not supposed to be security experts. If something worries you as a passenger, there's no reason not to talk to the flight crew about it. The problem is that this got escalated from there directly to the flight marshals and the FBI. That is the doing of the pilot. The pilot should have walked back, and talked to the people, and seen what it was all about. And if he was still uncomfortable, then had the flight marshals remove them. In my book, he's the only one at fault.
I seriously doubt that Bin Laden could care less if American Muslims are getting delayed to attend religious conferences in Florida. And if he does/did care, I think he would want them to make it on time.
There are no races. "muslim" is exactly as much a race as "white" or "black".
Or to put it another way, if there is racism, there is a "race". There is no other way of telling.
People who like to say "hatred of x" is not racism "because 'x' is not a 'race'", well... guess.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
That is really weird to me. As far as I know, a "Keep out" sign has legal force regardless of whether there's someone there to ask you to leave.
Shouldn't a "no X allowed" sign be legally equivalent to a "KEEP OUT - oh and people who aren't carrying X are granted special permission to enter" sign?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Wow, thanks for your false analogy. That helped a lot.
Because it makes perfect sense that middle-eastern terrorists would bring their wives and children aboard a plane to Orlando, and then discuss their nefarious terroristic plans with each other, for all to overhear, in English.
cat * >> sig
rj
IIRC someone did some statistical research and came to the conclusion that the back was generally safer than the front.
However afaict there are relatively few airplane crashes with both fatalities and survivors.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Who knows. But I think every state has criminal laws about making false reports to law enforcement. And I know there's a federal law about lying to agents. Plus, there's slander... not criminal but civil, and still a way to strike back at the racist little prig. Frankly, I hope they take the SOB for every penny he/she is worth. This sort of thing should never be tolerated. Heh... It'd be nice if EACH of the nine sued separately and consecutively.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
"Irfan, 29, is a lawyer who lives in Alexandria, Va. He was traveling to a religious retreat in Florida with his wife, along with his brother and his family, including three children, ages 7, 4 and 2. They were joined by his brother's sister-in-law and a family friend." How is the guy going to explain this ordeal to his kids?
Our product managers used to cal the contents of our product packaging a "Bill Of Materials" Unfortunately, referring to BOM's while traveling is not a good thing.
It's just semantics. Nowadays, racism started to mean any kind of hate/intolerance against a group of people sharing a common homeland, religion, etc.
ics
It just shows how much of what we go through is security theater. If they were really secure harmless comments about the engines or even bombs wouldn't matter as you couldn't get one on anyway. It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people. Real terrorists aren't going to make jokes.
Those signs have nothing to do with criminals being told not to carry guns into a place. They are there for legal reasons to restrict and notify those with concealed weapons permits (who are carrying) that the place of business does not allow guns on the premises. If they don't post the sign, concealed weapons are allowed by default, except in certain places (government buildings, etc...).
Violating a sign that says "no X allowed" isn't breaking the law.
My blog
Unfortunately most of the security policies in place have been based on the knee-jerk reactions of the likes of TSA and FAA - remember the 2006 carry on liquids ban??? Until cooler heads prevail at these agencies (like that'll happen) we will all have to suffer the indignities they put on to us.
Oh, the person who said the suspicious thing clarified that it shouldn't have raised suspicion. Well, I guess that settles it then.
I personally think the names of the people who made the complaint that got them booted off the plane to BEGIN WITH should have THEIR names made public, so they can be properly ridiculed for abject stupidity.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Seriously, what's with that comment? Democracy seems to me a bad hypocritical joke. Do we really need to pick on each race/ethnic/religious group at a time and "free" them after years and years of degrading them and destroying their rights (if they had them in the first place)? Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Disclaimer: I'm not perfect by any standards and I'm not prejudice proof (I'm pretty sure I have some really 'good' ones) but outright hate against a minority, a nation, a race, or a religion is disturbing and infuriating.
ics
Except that they enter private property in direct violation of the posted conditions for entry. IANAL, but I think that makes 'em trespassers.
Maybe not. Wikipedia says the following, but provides no citation.
In some situations, business owners post signs that appear to prohibit guns, but because the signs do not meet State or local law defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign, the sign does not carry the force of law and a permit holder can legally ignore it. In Texas, for example, the specifications of a Section 30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry are clearly defined, and only a sign meeting the specifications carries the force of the section. A sign, for example, that depicts the silhouette of a gun with a red circle and slash (similar to other signs prohibiting an action), that simply says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED", is too small, has incorrect text, or is not placed prominently can technically be ignored as it doesn't fulfill the requirements to ban permit holders from carrying concealed. Many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, but such is explicitly taught by the state licensed concealed carry instructors. Conversely, the intent of posting such a sign may only be to discourage entry while carrying by those unfamiliar with the law, which (almost by definition) typically includes only those not licensed to carry concealed handguns. Because a licensee is trained to recognize a valid sign and differentiate it from a nonbinding sign, posting an invalid sign for this purpose serves as a form of doublespeak, reassuring patrons who oppose concealed carry while at the same time not actually prohibiting concealed carry.
And don't be talking about Byte-Order-Markers. And no she's not the bomb either. Any such references, you will find, will have bombed.
For posterity: Then named Godspeed You Black Emperor!, they were in Ardmore, Oklahoma in March, 2003, and got hassled at a gas station, not while eating pancakes at IHOP. They had just finished playing a (great) show at Ridglea Theater in Dallas with Bardo Pond, and were en route to St. Louis.
Wikipedia has a concise summary, and notes that the ordeal was also mentioned in Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country?
"Wow, the jets are right next to my window."
Must have been an MD-80/MD-88. I sat in the back between the engines on my trip back from LA last year. The flight attendant was offering earplugs. I am so glad I took them; That harmonic between the engines on takeoff would deafen Hellen Keller. The airline needs to apologize and refund their money. Oh, yes. To anyone who is bitching about profiling and how most hijackers or bombers are not dressed in Muslim garb, you are only suggesting that we need MORE security, not less. It needs to be revamped so $7.50/hr rent-a-cops are not in charge of security.
The party's over
A little OT, but I can't let this one go.
Medical insurance is so expensive because an entire industry of middle men has inserted itself into the health care process. These people provide no service, but siphon off billions of dollars that could otherwise pay for care. Where I live, the head of a medical insurance company has consistently been the highest paid person in the state.
Insurance companies are the Ticketmaster of our health care system. Enjoy those convenience fees.
Oh no, this type of argument again! "If only everyone there were armed, tsk tsk!" Because there are no unarmed psycho killers.
Would you rather hang out in a crowd of armed citizens who can't even punch holes in ballots correctly? What makes you think they can punch holes in anything else?
Your argument is simply not compelling; nobody is seriously going to worry about about being shot by a mentally-challenged psycho killer who is emboldened by the absence of a "NO GUNS" sign. You're probably more likely to get killed by a meteorite than a psycho killer standing near that sign. It might behoove you to keep the sign there; if a rock comes hurtling in from outer space you can rip the sign off the wall and hold it over your head for a little shielding.
in Florida the laws are clear about where you can and cannot carry a concealed weapon - from a legal standpoint a sign at a mall that says "no Firearms" is not actually legally binding since a mall is a public place AND NOT on the list of places that the State of Florida says you cannot carry a concealed weapon - you might get "in trouble" for getting caught with a gun there but you would get off scott free in court (if you have a CWP) - same goes for hospitals, NOT on the list, and usually have a sign out front stating "No Firearms" but legally you can carry a concealed weapon there.
You're absolutely right, and next time the 1.2 billion strong Muslim community gets together for its annual meeting where they discuss how to prevent any of them from acting in a way to reflects badly on the rest, it should totally be on the agenda.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You can't send a corporation to jail.
What other justice would you offer? Or should business be above the law?
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Being someone who sees merit and common sense in racial profiling, even *I* think that this was complete idiocy/stupidity/lunacy (though I still can't quite communicate how enraged I feel just by typing!).
Making a comment about how close you are to a jet engine IN NO WAY communicates ANYTHING about terroristic, hostile, or malicious intent.
Also, being one who hates to see frivolous and baseless/remotely baseless lawsuits, I think that they family should beat AirTran into the next decade with the fattest lawsuit they can get away with.
If I was US Airways, however, I would have given them free round-trip tickets (first class) and apologized for the inconvenience caused by AirTran, even though it wasn't my doing.
How stupid does a captain have to be to:
a) Feel so threatened that he has to kick a family of 9 off the plane,
b) Keep them off the plane even after the *FBI* tells them there is absolutely no problem.
If I was the FBI supervisor in charge, I would have yelled to the pilot how much of an idiot he was, in full view of the other passengers.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
And any discussion of Kevin Costner's box-office performance over the last couple of decades will put you on the no-fly list for life.
Although it seems unlikely they were actually kicked off for their religious beliefs (unless, I don't know, they were discussing the One True God, and they were overheard). It was more likely their appearance, whether that was an asian appearance (which would be racist), or dress typically associated with muslims, I don't know.
TFA says:
Irfan told the newspaper he thought he and the others were profiled because of their appearance. The men had beards and the women wore headscarves, traditional Muslim attire.
So, they were anti-beard and anti-headscarves then.
I don't think it really matters whichever of these is true though, it's still a ridiculous story. And it's not like they were given a choice to "stop being religious" or had the ability to shave their beards off, they were judged based on something they had already done, and so it's true that they had no choice in being able to change that.
I'm definitely not a big fan of lawsuits but there is such a thing in the U.S. Constitution as protection against discrimination about origin.
What sane person wants to own an airline with the way that industry is going?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Very funny - shouting doesn't make you right. It makes you loud. And your point in my opinion is not the caseor the truth of the matter. It was fear - pure and simple. Fear and then doing something about that fear. I'd rather the people did something than remain all "PC" and do nothing.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
IANAL, but typically, no. For example, if you were in a movie theater that says "no food or drink", and the usher saw you with a candy bar, he could ask you to throw it out or in the extreme ask you to leave, as it is his (the company's) property. If you then refused to leave you could be arrested for trespassing. If you were kicked out for having the candy bar and given a notice banning you from the property (stores often do this with shoplifters, for example), you could be arrested on sight if you return at a later date. You could also be arrested for trespass for entering a clearly closed theater without explicit permission. In some states businesses with the approved "no-carry" sign are written into the concealed carry laws as locations prohibited to carry (ie carrying there will get you a misdemeanor ticket for vio of the CCW law). In states without this provision it is the simple law of trespass that the owners have available; you are only in violation if discovered, asked to leave, and you refuse to do so.
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
I'll use colorful pictures with dinosaurs next time. Maybe that will help.
Your nickname says a lot. It's ignorant self absorbed fuckers like you that got us in this mess in the first place. Get out of your mom's basement and see the real world - maybe, just maybe, you'll understand it a little better. And no, 2nd life does not count as the real world.
An idiot with a car is vastly more dangerous than an idiot with a gun. The death statistics there aren't even arguable. If you don't consider people who brought a gun to the mall with the intention of shooting people (who presumably don't care about signs), then, for the remainder, to worry about whether some idiot is carrying is, frankly, stupid. The danger you placed yourself in by driving to the same place at about the same time as some idiot is *so* much larger than the danger involved with a gun that the gun danger is a round-off error.
Just because people ignore car deathes and react with great emotion to gun deaths doesn't make guns more dangerous than cars, or even worth considering as dangerous when there are also cars.
On topic: the same argument goes for our *stupid* obession with security theater at airports. Until the danger of terrorism is larger than the danger in drviing to the airport, why ar we wasting our time with this nonsense? It's emotion stomping all over reason, and nothing else.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Only a few Reef Sharks attack humans, statistically speaking it's really just a few. Keep an eye out for sharks when you see sharks? Horrible! Racist! or Sharkaphobic Ignorance! What you call Pathetic is common sense, and I sir, am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance and stupidity that some moon eyed idealists display rather than confronting reality and actual human behavior. Ideals are fine, but reality calls for the ability to hold onto your ideals but deal with reality. You sir, have no such ability. Pathetic.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Wow! A comment that entirely invalidates the username of the commentator, now and for the remaining life of the Universe.
Really, that takes some mad rhetorical skills right there.
Rats off to ya!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
No one should be denied service because of their ethnicity or religion. But, as politically incorrect as it sounds, an airport security guard who doesn't divert a little more attention to Islamic-looking passengers is being negligent.
This is a straw man. No one here is questioning whatever profiling the security guards might do at the airport. Nor does anyone have a problem with "a little more attention". The issue is ignoring all the security of the airport, and just going by random mob-rule comments from the passengers - does that sound like good Bayesian probability to you? And then, they were kicked off even after they had received "a little more attention", and been cleared.
And don't forget to factor in all of the white males in your terrorist statistics.
Yo don't know how many times that sign has stopped me. First, I went in to one of those mega-churches and saw that gun ban sign. Totally bummed me out, and I left. Then, I got the idea I could do similar damage with a flamethrower. So, I spent all weekend going through Make.com for ideas, built my flame thrower, and made it over to the church to go kill some innocent people. Upon further inspection, it said "dangerous weapons." Foiled again. I'll tell you, for terrorism experts, those signs are really bad business. There's really no way around it without arousing suspicion at some point.
Seriously, saying "bomb" in an airplane can pretty much land you in the can. You think that if they had actually DONE something they would have been let go after two hours? No way they would have gotten out if anything could have been pinned on them...
Yes, this reeks of ethnic profiling. It is turning out to be clear that this family has no ill intent here.
Some of AirTran's mishandling sounds like generic bureaucratic screwing-up that is being viewed differently because of the nature of the situation. Surprising that they acted against what the FBI said, though. Not sure if this just one or a few asshats or a systemic problem at AirTran...
Yes, this was crap blown out of proportion. However, one has to have a no-nonsense response to security issues. It *was* misconstrued, but member(s) of the Muslim family *did* say something stupid; they weren't tossed off solely based on appearance.
Just think if something had happened and it was later found out that someone make this stupid comment
Yes, actual terrorists probably wouldn't let something slip, but nobody's perfect, even if heavily trained.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I remember a real life documentary on the BBC, where an older gentleman was bringing an expensive violin back for a family friend.
Sitting in the airport lounge, waiting for his flight, part of his conversation was overheard by another waiting passenger ~ he'd remarked that the violin case looked like one gangsters used to use in the olden days.
Two armed police officers detained him, questioned him, kept him overnight and let him continue his journey the following day with a warning.
If the law-abiding citizens enter somebody else's property with a gun against the owners wishes, I don't want to know what the criminals do.
The same?
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Blowing up a crowded security checkpoint at an airport would have a nice irony to it, in addition to the overreaction as all other airports shut down causing massive travel problems.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
even with out the ethnicity issue this sounds like lawsuit time. Are you forgetting about all the lost time and needless hassle?
its utter bs to make the ethnicity the entire story or reason for lawsuit. If they did this to 'joe the well to do executive' you can bet the farm he'd sue them for wasting his time, ruining his vacation, intentionally causing undue delay, etc etc. The ethnicity is just 'why' they were more than likely 'selected.' They probably wouldnt have done this to 'joe the exec' but had they done it we'd be at the same place.
IANAL but I'm guessing that playing the game of "no indication they were a threat to anyone" is pointless. Think about it. If there was no indication, but they pulled them anyways and it turned out they were 'a threat' we wouldn't be having this convo would we? (and they'd probly be locked up in one of those secret jails somewhere?) That and the fact that they will make up a reason that they felt they were a threat. The problem is that they were 'wrong' about it, and how they handled it after being 'wrong'. I would agree that I'm sure it was racially motivated; just not sure how easy that will be to prove sadly.
(posting AC because of moderations)
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Good thing your name is not Rachid, or I would moderate you terrorist -1.
Despite the fact Israel has shown great restraint in dealing with the Palestinians (if it was me, Id bulldoze the entire Gaza strip into the sea and turn it into a resort), they are still labeled as evil and a terrorist state for finally retaliating after multiple rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
And up until the point I saw that the Israeli's get their children to sign and paint the missiles they retaliate with, I had some sympathy for them too.
Yeah, computer people tend to assume trespass laws are magic, but, people aren't required to read and parse all signs.
Especially as the signs say 'No Gun', and not 'No Admittance if Carrying a Gun'. They're not even attempting to tell you not to enter. Even if they were, however, that probably would not work.
'Employee only' signs and 'No Admittance Without Authorization' can work, if clearly posted, though. They have to be posted on the door, though, not some random location on the wall once inside.
And, you'd think, 'Womens' and 'Mens' signs on restrooms, but it turns out that's not actually trespassing either, although there are other laws about that.
Trespassing, in general, requires someone to actually ask you to leave or very specific signs posted in a manner you cannot fail to miss.
Although be aware that some 'No Gun' signs are simply informing you of pre-existing laws about where you can have guns. Like those signs near schools declaring them to be Gun Free Zones...it's illegal to have a gun that close to the school, the signs are just a courtesy. (However, violating the sign would still not be trespassing, it would be a different crime.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If they win the airline, they can have their revenge by allowing the current ownership to keep it on the condition that they change its name back to ValuJet. Or has everyone forgotten why they changed their name?
They couldn't reboard the original flight because it had left before they were cleared by the FBI. An AirTran spokesperson claimed that the problem with rebooking on a later flight was that the family's data hadn't been updated in the computer file available to the gate agents. While this smells of blaming "the faceless nobody in the back room," it is well known that the airlines' chief weapon against their customers is the withholding of accurate information. In my experience the gate agents are frequently victim of such information control.
"The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback."
So American consulates were attacked by muslim extremists because of blowback. Why were Danish consulates attacked by muslim extremists? Blowback as well? Making political caricature cartoons is an act of war now?
Why was Theo van Gogh killed by a muslim extremist?
Since you might be Canadian(inferring from GYBE! mention), maybe you'll appreciate this one. Why was Tarek Fateh attacked by muslim extremists? Being an apostate from Islam in an act of war now?
My opinion is that there are plenty of muslim extremists who do use violence on people pretty much just "because [they're] not muslim."
If you read Sayyid Qutb's Milestones, which at least Wikipedia, citing something, calls a "major influence" on Islamic terrorism, there is this message that violence should be used to destroy non-muslim institutions which output vulgarities like pornography, blasphemy, and other haram things.
From Milestones:
"But any place where the Islamic Shari'ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the home of Hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it, whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located.
And thus Muhammad - peace be on him - fought against the city of Mecca, although it was his birthplace, and his relatives lived there, and he and his Companions had houses and property there which they had left when they migrated; yet the soil of Mecca did not become Dar-ul-Islam for him and his followers until it surrendered to Islam and the Shari'ah became operative in it."
I would say that such an interpretation of Islam is basically the same for Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups: Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.
Shows how much you know you lousy piece of shit! I've been supporting the welfare checks of your immigrant asses my whole fucking life. I've contributed more to this country, served in the military, paid full taxes for more than 25 years (I started working a full-time job and paying taxes when I was 14). So FUCK YOU! You lousy piece of shit. If I ever meet you or your "kin" I'll fucking kill you. Crap Bastard!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
An idiot with a car is vastly more dangerous than an idiot with a gun... Just because people ignore car deathes and react with great emotion to gun deaths doesn't make guns more dangerous than cars, or even worth considering as dangerous when there are also cars.
But this is all apples to oranges. Cars are more useful than guns. There is simply no parity between the two. Of course we're willing to put up with more risk from cars than guns. Cars improve our lives in ways that guns do not. We would have more deaths from all kinds of causes if we didn't have cars. Guns carry less bang for the buck.
"muslim" is exactly as much a race as "white" or "black".
That's not correct at all. A Muslim is someone who adheres to Islam. Islam is a religion. Religion is an idea.
Race, on the other hand, is a way of categorising people by their physical traits, such as skin colour. The two things are very different, and people who subscribe to religion should be no more immune to criticism, ridicule etc. than any other person in a society that values free speech.
To put it simply, hating someone because their clothes imply they may think a certain way is stupid, but it isn't racist.
Amnesty International
The passengers were at fault for being racists [...]
How do you know they were being racist. There may have been no racial prejudice involved at all. The passengers are unknown to us are they not? They could have been "US born muslims" for all we know.
On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.
That seems rather an unfounded assumption to me.
When entering Gambia I was stopped and searched by the border control guards. Where they being racist - their racial origin was not mine - or was it merely because I presented them with a suspicion.
Well there's one thing this story has taught me: if I'm taking a flight and need to be there on time, it doesn't matter WHAT I hear other passengers say I'm going to STFU because if I say "I heard a suspicious remark" the damn flight will be delayed for HOURS.
... well, and the overzealous pilot, but still I'm sure if the passengers said "Pilot, they're looking for the safest seats, they must be terrorist!" he wouldn't have ordered them off.
"...other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security... Federal officials ordered the rest of the passengers from the plane and re-screened them before allowing the flight to depart about two hours behind schedule."
So really, who's fault is this? THE PASSENGERS!
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
White said the pilot, after being informed of the remarks, requested that two federal air marshals on board remove the individuals.
It's not reported what the people said. Example: "the jet is right here, we'd better move, it's not safe here when the jet blows up" (a possibly innocent easily misconstrued statement).
The airline said in a news release Friday that one of the passengers became irate, made inappropriate comments and had to be escorted away from a gate podium by local law enforcement.
If you abuse airline staff you get banned.
Incidentally it's interesting to note that IslamOnline ( http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1230650235063&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout ) mention one brother is an attorney (whilst all other sources exclude this, mentioning one as an anaesthetist) and also saying that all 9 family members were interrogated! Yeah, I bet the FBI interrogated those kids good and proper?!
In my view this has nothing to do with them being Muslim (if indeed they are) but everything to do with them saying something silly, it being miscontrued (by two separate people) and then them getting cross and wanting to sue someone.
I'd probably be pretty pissed too.
Depends on the state. In some states, those signs have no legal force whatsoever. In some states, ignoring them constitutes trespass (though frequently only after being asked to leave). In a few states, carrying past the sign is an offense unto itself.
That said, I--and most people I know--don't do business with anti-gun bigots. Save for the government, of course, but they won't allow me not to do business with them. Yes, DMV, I'm talking about you.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
You can't send a corporation to jail.
No, but you can disband them and sell off their assets to the highest bidder. If that were to happen a little more frequently, there'd be a lot less abuse of the system. And you most certainly can put the people at the top in jail. That does happen now and then.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The court could allow the airline's judgment to stand unhindered.
Then, since the airline is now picking and choosing which passengers it will carry, it loses its common carrier status.
Sometimes, the best way to change somebody's mind is to give him exactly what he wants.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
the gentleman had nothing but praise for the professionalism of the FBI agents who questioned him and his family. he said the questioning took less than three minutes, and then the FBI agents went with them to the Airtran counter to insure that they were clear to board the aircraft, but Airtran said NO.
he also thanked the FBI for their intervention in getting them onto USAir. so, I'll mod you for speaking ignorantly without knowing the whole story...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Are we really less capable than the various chat bots for understanding context?
You're on Slashdot and you have to ask that?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
As reported by the Associated Press (via yahoo.com) (via fark.com)
The marshals on the plane should have been smart and mature enough to see through that crap after 2 minutes of talking with that family.
I don't think the air marshals are allowed to reveal themselves. Otherwise the first group of terrorists finds out who air marshals are, and the second group later takes them out. The air crew would be the only people who could talk to the passengers; not being trained police officers, they couldn't investigate the case on the spot and called FBI. Past that point I agree, the airline failed to gracefully recover.
Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.
The rule of their God. If it were just a matter of belief in God this would be a non-issue. It's the requirement that their particular dogma be accepted as fact, with death to those who don't.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That is very well reasoned and I agree but don't you think that instead of just detaining "millions" of people they should try to research better methods of screening and streamlining the detainment protocols?
AirTran used to be called ValueJet.
They only use the 717, they were the
launch customer and they were the final
customer. They have 86 of them.
What is exactly this "terror" thing? Suppose an extended family of nine Norwegians board a plane and make comments about the relative safety of each seat. Will anybody have a feeling of terror upon hearing those comments? No.
People born in Norway don't fit the model people associate with terrorists. Norwegians are Lutherans and Martin Luther never told his followers to kill people who don't follow Martin Luther's teachings. No one who was born in Norway and raised the Norwegian way believes he will have seventy virgins to serve him in Paradise if he blows himself up killing infidels.
Sure, the *vast majority* of Muslims don't believe that bullshit either. It's a highly debatable matter if the teachings of Mohammed can be interpreted that way. But you don't see Muslims protesting against suicide terrorists. And that's the big problem with Islam.
Islamists are at a delicate point. I knows some people who are so-called "moderate" Islamists, they are much like "moderate" Christians, they interpret the teachings of their religion in a rational way. I'd rather be a friend of a moderate Islamist than a fundamentalist Christian.
The big problem with Islam, IMHO, is that the moderate Islamists are so reluctant to make a stand against the fundamentalists. You won't find any Christian who's afraid to criticize David Koresh or Jim Jones, but how many Islamists are ready to make a critical comment about Mohammed Atta?
That's the big problem with Islam, there's a small but significant minority that accepts the more radical interpretation of their religion. And that's something that causes terror in people....
Kaffiyeh. They're fairly fashionable at the moment round where I am (Manchester UK).
And I wore a shemagh (same thing) I got from an SAS guy for two years in Afghanistan as a soldier in the US Army. I also sported a full beard and mustache* while there. You can bet your ass I shaved, got a haircut, and put that head-rag in my bag before flying home on commercial airliners. Everyone has the right to practice whatever damn fool religion they want, but the rest of the world should be under no obligation to ignore your chosen flavor of irrational belief in a magic sky man. It ain't Buddhists or Methodists strapping dynamite to their waists and blowing up people in crowded markets. If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one. Granted, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane (rather than showing up in a button-up shirt and slacks) but steadfastly sticking to your dang fool religious costume in the face of known public perception is asking for trouble.
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion; that getting your lessons on morality and ethics from a 2000 year old book is as wise as getting your chemistry knowledge from writings of the same era; that the "bathwater" of religious dogma has long since drowned the "baby" of spiritual fulfillment. But whatever the reason, I think "tolerance" of religion is as silly a demand as tolerance of a belief that RED means GO and GREEN means STOP in traffic.
It'll be interesting to see how the mods go on this post. Most people here seem to agree that religion is bad when it says schoolbooks should contain christian fairy tales, but from the look of the mods so far here, it appears Islam is seen as some sort of underdog against the forces of ChimpyBUSHitler**.
* Locals don't take you seriously if you shave. Lack of facial hair symbolizes ignorance due to being young or female. Says a lot about their level of cultural sophistication, really. Most of those folks are the local equivalent of backwoods hillbillies.
** I won't pass on my full opinion of my former commander-in-chief, but I will say "not my favorite president"...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
You have such a damn easier time than I do at airports even being a born Canadian. I avoid US travel and airlines now, except when absolutely necessary. One time in Chicago I got thrown in a windowless room for "observation" for four hours because they believed I was on a no fly list. Needless to say I missed my flight, and the connection I was to make after that, and I lost 36 hours in the process. Naturally they acted like releasing me for having done no wrong was equal to doing me a huge favour, which left compensation as a distant dream. It's a shitty time to be young, male and Muslim. Even a liberal, clean-shaven one. My full sympathy is with this family, and if I were them, I'd take advantage of the good ol all-'merican tort system and slap those people with a lawsuit.
I firmly believe that the type of people who are recruited to fill the positions in American customs and transport security(both TSA and airline staff) are some of the lowest, least human scum available. None of the other countries I've ever traveled to have so consistently hired such uncouth assholes, and this experience is culled from many tens of thousands of kilometers of travel. As a matter of fact, some of those countries actually had people who were *courteous*, that really surprised me considering the duffers I was used to seeing at US border crossings in NY and Michigan state.
heh, thanks for reminding me of Retief.
I need to dig up my old Keith Laumer books and flip them over to my kids. They read everything.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
In Texas, the only non-police that can carry are those with a concealed license (CHL). The only valid sign to ward off a CHL is described in Texas Penal Code 30.06, with explicit wording, and explicit lettering size, and explicit placement. All other signs are called "ghostbuster" signs (pistol with a red slash), and legally mean nothing. Of course, if you can't be carrying legally anyway, I guess they mean something.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
No, 'keep out' is a statement, 'no entry if you're carrying a gun' is a conditional statement. The former simply requires the reader to know what 'keep out' means, the latter requires the reader to evaluate the conditional which is much more complicated.
For instance, what counts as a gun? Does a TASER count? does anything which is legally defined as a firearm (which may include pepperspray and air rifles) count? Should you infact use the military definition and assume that you're ok so long as you aren't wheeling some artillery behind you?
Evaluating a conditional constructed by someone else is fraught with difficulty (and not just opportunities to be obtuse) if you have to always get the same result as they do.
In answer to your question; no.
IANAL, etc.
FGD 135
I think AirTran deserves a hefty lawsuit. This was very clear cut racism.
Not in a legal sense it isn't. Given that pilots have wide discretion to eject any passenger, even if all they had was a "suspicious" look on their face, without any documented assertion that their ethnicity or religious garb was the reason for their ejection, it'd be impossible to prove anything based on a single incident.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
It's just semantics. Nowadays, racism started to mean any kind of hate/intolerance against a group of people sharing a common homeland, religion, etc.
People may use "racism" that way, but they're wrong. "Race" is a reference to physical traits, to genetic heritage. Using "racism" to describe intolerance of people for the religion they choose is just illiteracy.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Until the danger of terrorism is larger than the danger in drviing to the airport, why ar we wasting our time with this nonsense?
There were 40,000 car deaths in United States in 2007. The WTC had 25,000 people inside the buildings when the first plane hit and often had as many as 50,000 on any given day. That's the WTC alone, never mind the Pentagon and presumably the White House. That also doesn't count the wide-spread economic impact of 9-11 since apparently the final death count is all that matters. We were very lucky that 9-11 only claimed 3,000 lives. The potential could easily have exceeded U.S. traffic deaths.
Never mind that you dying in a car crash will not tank the economy.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Panicing because you're a paranoid nutter nosing in on other people's conversations is disorderly conduct. No system can possibly maintained that penalises people for how other people react to them.
Talking about using a bombe to crack encryption doesn't cause a panic, someone who heard half the conversation shouting "he's talking about bombs!!!!!11!!!11!" causes a panic.
FGD 135
I doubt this will even get read given the number of comments already. But after reading some of the shit here, it needs to be said. What happened here was completely unacceptable. These people were clearly thrown off because of their appearances. The posters who have said that wearing traditional Muslin dress is a "kick me sign" or stupid need to GTFO of my country if you're here. This is AMERICA. You're supposed to be able to be whomever you want, and be treated fairly regardless of whom that turns out to be. I'm white. I'm about as boring and typical as we come in appearance, and if I had been on that plane. I would have told the idiot to calm down as there's no way a family of 9 are terrorists, or that terrorists attempt to survive their bombings by relocating to a different area of the plane. I would also have asked the family to refrain from talking about a sensitive subject given the reactions of other passengers. And when there people were removed from the plane, I would have left as well and I will never fly them again.
Like, not giving them a flight after the FBI cleared them?
Yeah.. and we sent those 'friendship' medals that the Japanese gave us right before Pearl Harbor wired to the bombs that we dropped on Tokyo in Dolittle's raid (well, 5 of them at any rate).
I assume you are either Canadian, European, or one of leftie Americans. You sit in your nice little house, drive to work in your car, do your job, go home... maybe go out at night to a restaurant or a movie with friends or family. You don't have much to worry about apart from car accidents or maybe some crime.
Now imagine trying to live your wonderful life in Israel. Wondering if rockets are going to land in your office. Wondering if that kid on the bus clutching the bag is going to blow himself and the rest of the bus up with him for a intangible promise of something in the afterlife. Imagine having to live under that fear everyday of your life just because someone with a different religion than yours thinks that you should be wiped from the face of the earth.
You people who blame Israel fail to take that into account, but only seek to assign blame to them for retribution for many past attacks make me sick. They have tried on several occasion to make peace with those people, and what do the get? More rockets, more suicide bombers, and more hate from the enemies that surround you. And now they go forward into a future where it is uncertain on whether they can count on there staunchest ally in a few weeks.
While I don't agree with the way the OP expressed his or her ideals, there is a grain of truth to what they said. If you had green bugs, blue bugs, and orange bugs, and the blue bugs tended to carry a particular nasty disease ten or twenty times more often than the green or orange bugs, but all three types of bugs do have some agricultural benefit, you sample way more blue bugs looking for this disease than you would the orange or green ones.
So is the same with profiling. You are just simply narrowing down the pool of possible suspects because those that wish to do us the most harm tend to be of the Muslim faith. So you look at those more closely than you would those who do not match the profile. Is it perfect? Not by a longshot, but until they come up with a 'pre-crime' department, it works and we are all the better for it, despite the hurt feelings that may be caused.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
WTC in 1992. WTC in 2001. Richard C. Reid in 2002. And these are just a few
No, from a statistic POV (i.e. profiling), muslims are a MUCH BIGGER threat.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Israel violates the Geneva Conventions constantly and frequently engages in large-scale terrorism (such as what they're doing right now).
Retaliation for suicide bombings and daily rocket attacks is not terrorism. It is justice. Once again, another is quick to blame Israel, this time for violating 'the Geneva convention'. Where is the condemnation of the suicide bombers, of the rocket attacks? Where is the condemnation of those that threaten to wipe a sovereign nation off the map?
And while your precious UN condemns Israel, the allow the continued genocide in Africa to continue unchecked. They allow a madman to stand on the floor of UN and say Israel and the US will be destroyed, and yet when those of have been attacked retaliate, they say how evil they are.
A pox on all of you, I say.
Most of the complaints I read and agree with are things like, "Hey, stop bombing the fuck out of countries and instilling hatred for us among their people you assholes!"
So who were we bombing before 9/11? Before our embassies were bombed? Before the Cole was attacked?
The only one that qualifies would have been the Gulf War. You know, the one sanctioned by the UN... otherwise known as Desert Shield/Storm.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
As an addendum to my previous comment, I cite this
The simple truth is this: International law relating to the conduct of the incursion exculpates the Israelis and convicts the Palestinian Authority. Period.
The Palestinian intifada describes itself as an armed struggle, an uprising. The word that describes the leaders and planners of such an armed struggle, in legal parlance, is "combatants."
And international law could not be any more plain. On June 8, 1977, the Fourth Geneva Convention was updated. The document is called "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts."
Article 37 outlaws the use of civilian populations as a shield for military actions. It explicitly prohibits "the feigning of civilian, noncombatant status; and the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict."
What the leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas and Islamic Jihad do is hide among civilian populations to make it as difficult as possible for their enemies to attack them. The Geneva Convention denounces this as "perfidy."
Peter Bouckaert, a researcher at Human Rights Watch in New York told the Washington Post, "It's been incredibly difficult to tell the difference between fighters and civilians. If a combatant uses the civilian population as a shield in this way, the deaths incurred are the moral and legal responsibility of those who are hidings out in this grotesquely cowardly fashion.
Previously, Palestinians and their apologists had claimed the Israelis were violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by refusing to allow ambulances operated by the Red Crescent Society to move freely between Israeli hospitals and the West Bank towns in which the incursions were taking place.
Article 38 specifically addresses the ambulance issue: "It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun." And yet this is precisely what the Palestinians have done. The Israelis have stopped and searched ambulances emblazoned with the Red Crescent and found suicide belts hidden in them in the past.
By using this internationally accepted symbol as a diversionary tactic - in essence turning ambulances into tanks - the Palestinians thus bear the moral and legal responsibility under international law for the Israeli refusal to allow the free conduct of Red Crescent vehicles.
The violators of international law - the criminals in this war - are the Palestinians who devised these shameful tactics.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
I'm not condoning this in any way, but a lot of groups will probably kill you if you call them goat fuckers. Church of England will probably let you get away with it, anyone else is a risk.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Good points. Remember when there was a rash of lunatics driving down the sidewalks with intent to kill? We didn't ban cars or muzzle dumb remarks about bombs, did we? Hell no... in fact it spawned japes like "If you don't like how I drive, stay off the sidewalk!"
Seems we may also cope best with risks perceived as low-risk...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Oh please. That was clearly a staged photo op by some douchebag journalist. I defy you to find five more examples. you won't find even two.
On the other hand, have a look at daily Palestinian television and see the sort of sick incitement of those children, to die for Allah.
Sure you had sympathy for the Israelis. Sure.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
People do not know enough about Islam, or Muslims, and they don't know enough Arabs in person...
Or about many other cultures other than their own.
And they do not know their history.
Human instinct is to be afraid of what you do not understand... a 10,000 years ago being curious and investigating the noise in bushes gets you eaten by the animal lurking there... running in terror at the slightest noise helped you're genes reproduce and survive.
The problem is that in the modern world these instincts aren't really appropriate any more (99.99 % of the time) and are being systematically exploited by people in power to feed and support a culture of fear and uncertainty.
We've seen this strategy in history again and again to use ignorance and instinctive fear to divide and conquer.
White against black, Christian against Muslim... whatever dividing lines you choose...
and while we are paralyzed with fear of each other the corporations and politicians do what they want.
They use the fear to justify taking away our basic rights in the name of security...
The truth is that with FREEDOM, comes RESPONSIBILITY and that the only difference between a police state and an open democratic society is the loss of YOUR rights. Neither are more secure against terrorists... (in fact the police state is already practicing terrorism against its own citizens).
I'm not afraid to travel to the US because of Muslim terrorists any more than I am of the plane I'm in getting struck by lightning...
Frankly US border officers or the idea of Armed Air Marshals and FBI officers with unlimited rights to arrest search etc scares me much more...
The reality is that extreme fanaticism (whether religious or otherwise) is usually a product of extreme poverty, lack of hope and/or desperation. Normal people with day jobs that can feed their families don't go strap explosives to themselves and blow up buildings or planes...
That is the real issue. If global hunger was eliminated and basic rights where there for everyone (including basic education) then fanatical cultures or religions would have a hard time finding anyone to follow their suicidal ideas.
This is a clear case of racial profiling and is just another sign of the lost rights of American citizens (in the name of security).
----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
You're absolutely right, in addition to this I'd like to say that I enjoy living under Stalin because at least he's not Hitler.
Being better by default is not a good thing, being better by default does not automatically make you right. You may be happy being less wrong, but you're still wrong and just because someone is more wrong then you it doesn't make it right.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I agree with most of your post in a pragmatic sense, but it does raise some issues in an idealistic sense.
If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one.
This sounds an awful lot like "if a woman doesn't want to be raped, it might behoove her not to dress provocatively". On the surface there is some logic to it: if a potential rapist happens across a woman dressed in particularly attractive or revealing attire he may decide to attack her. So from a purely pragmatic point of view, it does make some sense. On the other hand, there's a good reason why "but she looked really, really hot" has never been considered a valid excuse for rape, and "blame the victim" mentalities in general are considered very poor form.
As you said yourself, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane. Yet for some reason it's okay to expect people to dress differently purely because lots of people have some idiotic notions about "what terrorists look like"?
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion
It probably is. To find out, try a thought experiment: what if this discrimination wasn't occurring against people wearing clothing that implied a particular religious faith, but instead that they supported a particular sports team? Would you then say, "well supporting the Chicago Bulls is a dangerous habit and if you don't want to get kicked off planes you should keep your interest in basketball to yourself"? Or would you say "that's fucking ludicrous and I feel kind of embarrassed to be part of a society that tolerates such ridiculous and obviously ineffectual 'security' measures"?
Also, I think your comment about the mods here being pro-Islam and anti-Christian is a strawman. People aren't being persecuted and treated like terrorists because they wear a cross necklace or are dressed like a nun. Islamists aren't trying to get their religion's creation myth taught alongside evolution in schools. Apples and oranges.
posted in a manner you cannot fail to miss.
That seems a little unfair.
You people who blame Israel [...]
At no point did I say I hold either side responsible, I was more stating that I don't find either side blameless.
I assume you are either Canadian, European, or one of leftie Americans.
I assume you're an arrogant asshole. Snap.
The world thinks Americans are a bunch of "morans." Really. We do. You deserve it.
I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.
Tom Lehrer
Amen, bro'. Timothy McVeigh couldn't have put it better.
Just kiddin' on the 'Amen' because, after all, we don't want to offend the everyone-should-believe-exactly-like-me crew, do we now? Of course not.
By the way, have you ever been inside the Statue of Liberty? No? Well, there's a plaque on the thing with all this, "give us your poor, your huddling masses... blah, blah, blah... something about "yearning to be free." What a load of commie bullshit, eh? I say we change all that to: "Give us your white, your white, your white and your white." Has a nice American ring to it, doesn't it? I knew you'd like that idea.
Hey, do you know why those nutsacks strap C4 and stuff to themselves or drive the family beater into police barricades, etc? It's because they don't have F-18s and Stealth bombers. Well, fun's over, for now. See ya in Oklahoma City, cowboy.
they fire 200 rockets per day
Citation needed. I never heard about 200 rockets (more like a dozen or so) and not everyday in the news.
You might argue that some of the people in Gaza don't fire rockets at Israel every day. True, but they clearly support it. We know this not only from their own mouths, but also from the fact that they sit by while it happens.
Similar: if you let a friend run a meth lab in your house, do not be surprised if the cops arrest you and take your house. Blaming your friend will not significantly help your defense. You let shit happen in your house, you face the consequences.
Your analogy is broken. My own house != the country i live in. Not even your last paragraph stands if i live in an apartment.
Death per gun in AU 0.0009%.
Death per car in AU 0.00000003.
Three orders of magnitude. Guns are more dangerous, in Australia guns are licensed so every owner has to prove he or she can operate a firearm in a safe manner so imagine if we were a nation that did not encourage responsible shooting. You're quiet right though, the statistics aren't even arguable.
Further more, if we move to accidents only, the fatality rate for motor vehicle accidents is around 30%, the fatality rate for firearm accidents is around 80%. This is just for accidents. Murder via motor vehicle in Australia, 1 in three years. Murder by firearm in Australia 20 per year.
Would you like to keep arguing the death statistics.
How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
This is only true if we count the number of casualties and ignore the number of motor vehicles vs firearms. Add to this the frequency of use as well as the likelihood of survival from an accident and you should see that this is complete and utter nonsense.
We license people for motor vehicles because they can be dangerous in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to drive one, why shouldnt it be the same for firearms? In many countries it is, a person has to prove they are of sound mind and body, can operate a firearm and know the laws governing their use before being able to purchase one and it make sense, both accidents and crime is down. Now, assume everyone was armed, could you trust everyone on the street:
1 - knows how to operate a firearm.
2 - knows how to maintain a firearm.
3 - is of sound mind.
4 - is physically capable of shooting (strength and eyesight).
5 - can aim.
6 - can differentiate between an aggressor, defender and innocent under pressure and time constraint.
7 - wont get any funny ideas about using that gun he or she is carrying.
Lets ignore 2 as most people don't know how to properly care for their car. I know for a fact that I cant count on 3, 4, 5, and 7 just by the kind of crazies I see every day. Now 6 turns the whole game into a MAD situation. Under pressure how do you expect that every armed participant will instantly know who is the aggressor, who is the defender and who is not a participant at all. This is the reason our police have to go through rigorous training before even being certified with a fire arm, and why each weapon discharge in the line of duty is investigated regardless of how obvious its necessity was.
Under you scenario you'd have people walking around with guns that didn't know how to use them, how to care for them and may not be entirely trustworthy. When someone does open fire, it wont take long as no. 7 will see to that, you wont have a dozen dead from gun shot wounds, you'll have a hundred dead with know idea who actually started shooting. MAD only works if its never used, if you give everyone a nuke MAD will get used, this is why we pursue nuclear non-proliferation and why most civilised nations sort out their issues without guns.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yes but that's how language evolves, it is possible that in a hundred years people will wonder why it's called racism to hate eggs or something like that :P. The few people interested in linguistics will know (and probably be just as against it as now) while the others will just use the word that the group has silently agreed on. Language rules don't tell the people how to talk, the people when talking, define (consciously or not) the rules of that language.
ics
Thanks, you reminded me of what I did to someone who annoyed me on a flight once
She was a bit afraid of flying, nervous, talkative and kept spilling her drink (vodka and flavoured soda) on me. Finally, after the third spill I suggested that she doesn't order another drink and just relax. She started babbling on and finally said "I just want to get back on the ground", my response "don't worry, that part will happen one way or another".
Her husband poked me in the back and said "I thought I was a bastard".
BTW, I did ask the stewardess if I could move seats after the second spill, unfortunately the plane was full. I have some initiative.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And I wore a shemagh (same thing) I got from an SAS guy for two years in Afghanistan as a soldier in the US Army. I also sported a full beard and mustache* while there. You can bet your ass I shaved, got a haircut, and put that head-rag in my bag before flying home on commercial airliners. Everyone has the right to practice whatever damn fool religion they want, but the rest of the world should be under no obligation to ignore your chosen flavor of irrational belief in a magic sky man. It ain't Buddhists or Methodists strapping dynamite to their waists and blowing up people in crowded markets. If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one. Granted, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane (rather than showing up in a button-up shirt and slacks) but steadfastly sticking to your dang fool religious costume in the face of known public perception is asking for trouble.
Thank you for serving your country, but your logic is ridiculous and offensive. You're saying that Muslims who wear scarves on their heads in airports are asking to be persecuted because Muslims that did not wear scarves on their heads hijacked airplanes?
That is akin to being afraid of all black people because you know someone who got mugged by one. Or hating all US soldiers because of a few bad apples.
It's that type of fear-based, closed-minded ignorance that is directly against everything the US was built upon and is being harnessed by the politicians to destroy this country, all under the guise of protecting us. You can't really blame them either, because if they don't appeal to that side of our human nature, they don't get reelected. So they waste all their time in office dealing with silly shit and ignoring the real issues.
this people shoudl not be talking about airplanes and engines
For an American, you sure don't seem to put very much stock in the first amendment.
Back in the 80's there were jokes about TWA and DELTA... A comedian said he hated flying TWA because it stood for "Traveling With Arabs" and prefered DELTA because it stood for "Don't Even Let Them Aboard"...
Of course back in the 70's and 80's every other week about you heard about another TWA jet being hijacked...
One thing I learned in the service was, all it takes is one aww shit to screw up a hundred atta-boys... Basically 1 screw up can screw up a reputation after having a hundred good deeds... There have been terror acts by different groups, yes. I will not contest nor deny it. Sadly the vast majority has been by splinter groups of fanatics from the Muslim religion. Each time sprouting off justification of there action because of their religion. Which is doublely ironic since the Koran and Muslim religion actually promotes peace and non-violience. So most terrorist are flouting a perversion of the belief system. Regardless, its the terrorists that are making headlines as devoute Muslims... Thus creating the anti-Muslim atmosphere much of the Western World now lives in.
The U.S. and other NATO countrys fighting terrorism will never achieve the goals they want. The only true way to eliminate the splinter faction Muslim group based terrorism is for the other Muslim groups to actively go after the splinter groups and deal with it themselves. Which considering Muslim is the largest and fastest growing religion currently, it would be more effective for them instead of crying about being type casted to actually go after and eliminate the problems from within themselves.
Or to paraphrase,
War - a large popular act of terrorism.
Terrorism - a small unpopular war.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So let me get this straight, you get on a plane and share your opinion that you'd rather not sit next to the engine, because it's not a safe spot in an accident, and you expect to be taken off of the flight, reported to the FBI, and embarrassed by being refused to be allowed back on or to take another flight later on despite the fact that you've been screened a second time and cleared by the FBI.
That, according to you, is a level headed response? An appropriate response?
Maybe it is for the airline - not because they could be terrorists, but because they make the other passengers aware that flying isn't perfectly safe even without terrorists?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You've let them win, you've enabled the extreemists. By reacting as scared kids who dont understand the real world, you are giving a huge and strong signal to the extreemists, that yes they have won, and the US generally has lost the war on terrism. thats right lost yet another "war". The US used to be the land of the brave and the home of the free !!! NOT ANY MORE. its the land of the scared and the home of the repressed. This family was born in the US, so they have a different religion to some others in the US, once was a time where the US had religious freedom, and freedom in general. The rest of the world looks upon the US now as a bunch of scared and reactive, ill informed hicks. Most of your congress dont even have passports !! they hardly know or understand what the world outside of the US is really like. The "war on terror" will go down in history as one of the most if not the most ill informed and poorly thought out campains in living history. and a huge loss to the US's standing on the world stage. Also due to this well stupid war on terror, the invasion of IRAQ (when they did not even do 911, or have WMD's), has initiated the biggest world wide financial crisis since the great depression. You cant expect to spends billions of dollars a week year after year after year in a failed war in Iraq and expect your economy to stay strong. (yes i do know about sub-prime, but that was not the causal problem to the crisis, it was the massive drain on the economy the war on terror that brought you down). Bush knew that a president had a better chance to gain re election if he had a cause and war, he did that in Iraq, he got his second term, and screwed the country and now the world to do it. Sometimes i wonder about the US mentality, also, raciasm, most people dont shy away from people we dont know, we are not afraid, we say "hello, where are you from" and we try to learn off them. but thats the rest of the world, seems not the US. Which is sad, **NOT** FREE,, ***NOT*** brave. and not being looked up to anymore. the US is a sad and hollow shell of what it used to be !!
I mean, seriously. You know, everyone continues to rip American culture for its reluctance to accept everyone else's quirks, but god forbid you know, you draw a picture of mohammed or ask a woman to dress, like, its the 21st century. Tolerance is a two way street, and I'm not seeing too much of it on the other side. I see muslims dressed up in full jihad regalia of those beards and stupid suits they were, and I just think, f-- them. I know that, if the power roles were reversed in the USA, muslims are and would be far less tolerant of christian culture than christian culture is of them. Mod me down for being politically incorrect if you want, but when you do, kindly point out the block of muslim nations that have the same level of civil advancement as the USA, Canada, UK, France, or even Germany.
This is my sig.
They really shouldn't have smoked a bong on the plain though, they should've waited til they got to Amsterdam!
Ever heard the expression 'locks are there to keep an honest man honest'? Maybe it's the same with 'no guns'-laws for bars?
A depressed and paranoid person with a gun will be more likely to do something after some drinks, than he would if the bouncer said 'no guns, sir' earlier.
That said, I was recently on a longer plane trip, and the security theater really is over the top, sometimes. My backpack was searched several times - and every time it turned out to be the metal frame of my headphones. OK, that seems thorough - but it would not have been a problem for me to bring in a hardened ceramic blade on my thigh...
I think you buttume too much about bots -- they can be quite sophisticated.
Two words "Timothy McVeigh" Howcumzit white boys aren't being hassled like people of color? Because America is racist, always has been. If a white family had asked where is the safest place to sit on an aircraft, nothing would have happened. Its easier to persecute people who are different than your brother or sister. Just because things are the way they are doesn't make them right. We change when some people push the norm and make us look at our selves, or we don't, and stop maturing as a society.
I will attempt to avoid the whole of the airline industry if I possibly can, but if not, please be assured that there is absolutely no way whatsoever that I will be on a US aircraft or passing through US airspace. It's just too inconvenient, and frankly, dangerous.
Sorry folks, but the behaviour your government and its servants on the international scene is just the pits and I'd much prefer to put my travel dollars into a country which is actually a responsible member of the family of nations.
Why do people hate others so easily? Is it the media, the propaganda, what? Just get over it, there are a lot people out there which are different than you but guess what, they mean you no harm. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
From the quran : "all non-muslims are the filthiest animals on the planet. When one irritates you, do not just kill one, but kill enough, so that they know their place".
(chapter 8, verse 55 and following).
This is not an isolated, lonely, out of context verse. The entire book is full of hate. About 2/3rds of the quran is devoted to hate against specific groups, including a few passages that institute hate of people with black skin.
And people think the bible is bad ... and that muslims should be "tolerated". Tolerating muslims is like "tolerating" Hitler. Not tolerant at all.
Just like you're within your rights not to buy tickets from them.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Really? I don't see you wearng a loincloth and trying to scalp people... If you ain't an Indian, you're an immigrant (and should go home and leave us alone)
>>Granted, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane ...
As terrorists are apt to blow themselves up, believe in faries etc, I think it's safe to assume that they're morons - rather than being simply idiotic. As such, and given that they're 'as thick as shit', I wouldn't put it past them!
@peetm
Violating a sign that says "no X allowed" isn't breaking the law.
No, but doing X where it isn't allowed is. (How does one "violate a sign", anyway?)
The signage merely informs you of the fact that no privately owned guns are allowed to be carried on the premises in a ready state. The most common reasons are that either the location is excluded by the carry law itself (hospitals, etc), or that carrying is against the wishes of the property owner, which makes entering those premises while carrying an act of trespassing.
In some states, e.g. Texas, the signage must meet specific requirements in order to be enforceable, but since you didn't refer specifically to ignoring non-compliant signage in the state of Texas, I'll just leave that as a sidebar.
A carry permit comes with responsibilities, which include respecting the wishes of private property owners and the other conditions of the permit. See http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf#page=76 if you'd like to read up on the subject a bit more. (Sorry, it's a poorly scanned PDF.)
So, unless your argument is that a carry permit somehow trumps all other laws, including the carry permit legislation itself, I can't see how your original claim that "these [sign ignoring gun carriers] are law abiding citizens" can be justified.
They didn't say anything about security. They were having the normal "Where's the safest place to sit on the airplane" conversation that every experienced traveler has had three or four times (at least) in their lives. They were completely misinterpreted, probably because they were Muslims. The FBI not only cleared them in less than two hours they specifically requested that the airline reseat them. According to both the family and the FBI there was NO security risk and no one got "irrate" until AFTER Airtran refused to reseat them. It was complete bull shit and never would have happened if they hadn't been Muslim.
The FBI agents eventually got them US Airways tickets and they continued their trip. The FBI doesn't clear you in two hours and HELP you continue your trip unless there was ABSOLUTELY no threat and they are being apologetic. Airtran totally screwed the pooch on this one, and now that it's made the front page of CNN.com (and they realized that one of the men is an attorney) they are back pedalling furiously.
It's kinda funny... Yesterday Airtran released this completely unapologetic press release, but after CNN pick it up and interviewed the FBI agents who contradicted the press release directly, they've now issued a formal apology. After all the agents have no dog in the fight and no reason to lie.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
That is the real issue. If global hunger was eliminated and basic rights where there for everyone (including basic education) then fanatical cultures or religions would have a hard time finding anyone to follow their suicidal ideas.
In general I agree with your comments and the West (particularly the US) has to address the issues of hunger and education in the third world if it ever hopes to be secure. Having said that, the West can hardly be blamed for all, or even most of the hunger and lack of education in the third world. Dictators that interrupt food aid (Myanmar comes to mind most quickly), religious and cultural biases against education (girls are being threatened with death and disfigurement for the "crime" of going to school in Afganistan right now, under the very noses of US troops trying to enforce the opposite policy), religious and cultural norms that insist people have more children than they can afford for the perceived status it grants them, all of these and many other issue are to blame for hunger and lack of education in the world. There is nothing the West can do about these issues, or very little at the least (my Afghanistan shows that even direct enforcement of western style values doesn't help much).
I'm by no means trying to say that the US and other "first world" nations don't share some of the blame, but we can't "fix" the problem. Certainly the Israelis could be more reasonable to the Palestinians (though that would be easier to argue if Hamas would stop randomly lobbing rockets into Israel), but them doing so will not change the culture of Palestine to make it value peace and education over personal bravery and violent action. The US could get out of Iraq, but it can't make Sunnis and Shiites like each other. There's only so much that the "West" can do, though I will grant you that we could do more of what we can do.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
People of every religion on the planet (and atheists, too) have engaged in terrorism. Christians (both Catholic and Protestant, not too far from me), Buddhists, Muslims, the lot. Using someone's appearance as a way to judge whether they are dangerous or not is a terrible idea. As you said, all the "bad guys" have to do is look like someone not being targeted, and hey-presto, they'll get through with less scrutiny. It's a false sense of security. That's why profiling of anything other than actual threat (ie explosives/weapons on their person) is pathetic.
I understand your take on humanity (or at least one highly-publicised section thereof) might be somewhat skewed by your time in theatre, but it's a grave mistake to let that paranoia erode security, as it just ends up hurting your cause more than helping.
I was on the second plane back into the US after 9/11, sat next to 3 Muslim gentlemen, all speaking Arabic to each other. I didn't bat an eyelid. We sat on the tarmac and witnessed a 10-minute silence for those who lost their lives (it was an American Airlines plane). The Muslim gentlemen even asked to borrow my FHM after I was finished reading it (and this was a British FHM, not the US version :)). I wasn't scared - I trusted the Heathrow security enough to provide the best level of security possible, which they did. They swabbed every bag for explosives residue (twice), and didn't get their collective panties in a bunch when someone non-white person not dressed head-to-toe in Gap or Abercrombie & Fitch had the temerity to want to fly on a plane.
I don't blame you - paranoia is a disease that spreads rapidly through "us" when we feel threatened by "them". It's human nature.
In London the police used to give people with Irish accents a hard time, as they figured the terrorists blowing stuff up were all Irish. Funnily enough Irish people can change their accents too, and all that policy (as unofficial as it was) achieved was alienating the non-terrorist Irish (ie damn near every single Irish person), which increased their support for those conducting the bombings. It was about as counter-productive as you could get. If we want Muslim people to see that we're not the monsters we're portrayed as, we have to do everything we can to not rise to the bait, and treat everyone the same until there is actual real evidence of wrong-doing. Not a throwaway comment about the location of a part of an aircraft.
It would be very ironic. But then we'd end up with extra security checkpoints before the real security checkpoints, and end up with not just the TSA but the TSASA, and maybe even the TSASASA. I just threw up in my mouth a little.
That's ridiculous. Do all Christians really want to stone rape victims? Of course not. So how is this different from Muslims? Just because the Quran has an offensive (or many offensive) passages doesn't mean most Muslims use that passage in their daily life.
Here's a newsflash: most people don't read their religious texts and live by them word for word (as if that was possible). In fact most people takes bits and pieces and effectively throw out the stuff they don't like. If you don't believe me, do a study on how many Catholic women have used birth control.
Also Chapter 8, Verse 62 says that if non-Muslims incline towards peace then Muslims should as well.
MY GOD WHAT A HORRIFIC BOOK?! THEY WANT PEACE?!
Why do people hate others so easily?
Evolution. 100,000 years of distrust of unfamiliar things and pattern recognition have been profitable for the human race as a whole. A couple of decades of PC thought is not going to change that.
Not that I condone this particular situation. The airline was in the wrong and should have at the very least refunded their money and bought them a ticket on another airline.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion;
You're not alone. Jesus felt the same way, and several of his followers wrote extensively about it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If you ain't an Indian, you're an immigrant (and should go home and leave us alone)
American Indians are immigrants, too. They just got here first. Everyone who is not an indigenous species to the American continents should go home.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Exactly! I'm sick and tired of hearing about how everytone "Hates" foreigners or whatever.
My whole life I swallowed the lie that somehow I owed minorities and the poor oppressed foreigners something. My eyes have been awakened over the last year or so. I've come to realize I was duped (as have we all been). I've seen first-hand how our standard of living is being squeezed from above and below. I've seen first-hand the farce that is the H1B-Visa program. We all are having our livelihoods stolen away from us.
Everyone, inevitably trots out the old saw about "Native Americans" to point out that "we" are not the original Americans. So WHAT? All this proves is that we need to fight harder than the "Native Americans" if we want to keep what our ancestors fought and died for.
I've worked consistenly between 50 and 70 hour work-weeks my entire life (since I was 14) just to have and approximation of a decent life not living amongst a bunch of punks and dead-beats. I never received any special help from the vast conspiracy of "Whites Only" club. Wanna know why? It doesn't exist!
Our cities are crumbling messes of inept, hate-filled, lazy, minorities who are always looking for a hand-out. Companies are out-sourcing and in-sourcing (H1B) undermining all the fair-labor laws we fought for in this country. All these 3rd world bastards come here wanting to take advantage of what this country has built but then they want to reject our values and substitute their own.
NO! NO! NO! I say, gather your guns. Gather your strength. Gather your courage. Gather your emotions. Be ready to fight and fight hard. It's going to get messy. They want us to cower in the corner and feel guilty while they steal everything from us. Then, when everything is taken and used up and destroyed, then they will blame us.
Again, I say NO! Stand up! Stand up! Stand up!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
"One of the passengers removed, Abdur Razack Aziz, said he will consider a lawsuit. "
Even if this passenger has a legitimate complaint, the airline and FBI will be busy defending their actions. Good luck with that.
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
Although I consider there _are_ races (did you see a black and white aside lately? they are different), I agree that while muslim is not a race, this is a hate-crime.
Wikipedia describes muslim has (aside credibility arguments):
A Muslim (Arabic: Ù...ØÙÙ...âZ), pronounced /ËmÊSslÉm/, is an adherent of the religion of Islam.
How is booting someone out because of his religion different than kicking him because of his race?
Of Code And Men
Secondly, the translation (by MAS Abdel Haleem from 2004) I have in front of me bears little relation to your quote:
The worst creatures in the sight of god are those who reject him and will not believe; who, whenever you [prophet] make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of god. If you meet them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed.
'Those who reject him' might not include Jews and Christians, I'm not sure. 'You [prophet]' means the translator is saying this was addressed to the prophet himself, rather that the 'whenever you make' being a modern version of 'whenever one makes'.
You've let them win, you've enabled the extreemists. By reacting as scared kids who dont understand the real world, you are giving a huge and strong signal to the extreemists, that yes they have won, and the US generally has lost the war on terrism. thats right lost yet another "war". The US used to be the land of the brave and the home of the free !!! NOT ANY MORE. its the land of the scared and the home of the repressed. This family was born in the US, so they have a different religion to some others in the US, once was a time where the US had religious freedom, and freedom in general. The rest of the world looks upon the US now as a bunch of scared and reactive, ill informed hicks. Most of your congress dont even have passports !! they hardly know or understand what the world outside of the US is really like. The "war on terror" will go down in history as one of the most if not the most ill informed and poorly thought out campains in living history. and a huge loss to the US's standing on the world stage. Also due to this well stupid war on terror, the invasion of IRAQ (when they did not even do 911, or have WMD's), has initiated the biggest world wide financial crisis since the great depression. You cant expect to spends billions of dollars a week year after year after year in a failed war in Iraq and expect your economy to stay strong. (yes i do know about sub-prime, but that was not the causal problem to the crisis, it was the massive drain on the economy the war on terror that brought you down). Bush knew that a president had a better chance to gain re election if he had a cause and war, he did that in Iraq, he got his second term, and screwed the country and now the world to do it. Sometimes i wonder about the US mentality, also, raciasm, most people dont shy away from people we dont know, we are not afraid, we say "hello, where are you from" and we try to learn off them. but thats the rest of the world, seems not the US. Which is sad, **NOT** FREE,, ***NOT*** brave. and not being looked up to anymore. the US is a sad and hollow shell of what it used to be !!
What "race" is Obama? Tiger Woods?
What "race" were Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass (both of whom had white fathers)?
What "race" was Martin Luther King, Jr. (who had an Irish grandmother and some American Indian ancestry as well)?
(As to whether I've ever looked at a black & white side by side - I'm "white" (English), my wife is "black" (Ivoirienne) - what "race" are our children?)
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Damn. Forgot my major point...
The only person who can reliably tell you what "race" somebody is is a racist.
That's why I consider "islamophobia" racism.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Well, AirTran has just lost forever the opportunity to sell me a ticket to anywhere... This sort of malicious idiocy should not be tolerated by anybody of any belief system and they (AirTran) should pay the price, by quietly going out of business!
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
In the ABC News interview with a man and a woman from this family (Saturday morning), a few things were apparent: - They are intelligent, professional people. - They consider themselves 'mainstream Americans.' - A combination of their Middle-Eastern-style traditional dress and their self-reported conversation about "safest places on a plane if it crashes" while boarding the plane, attracted the concern of other passengers. - Acknowledgment in the interview that airport signs and other messages encourage passengers to "report suspicious activity," thereby suggesting that mind-set to passengers. So ...
One would assume that college-educated Americans of any background would be aware of the intense security-awareness and sensitivity of public perceptions.
The interview comments included "we are just regular people," but did not support the general security concern or claim any patriotism or common cause with other Americans. Are they just visiting the US, or are they members of the community?
For people who claim citizenship and "rights" (and from an informed basis, as one of them is an attorney), this passive, push-it-to-the-limit style of confrontation is suspect in itself. Should everyone with a confrontational, skeptical attitude be kicked off airplanes? Of course not, but if one were looking for security risks (or dupes, or mules) it might be a good starting point.
As the Veteran with service in Afghanistan pointed out, physical appearances are significant, and have different significance in different cultures. Any educated "mainstream" American should know by now what choices in clothing and grooming will attract security concern on aircraft or any public transportation. Choices.
Idealists would say we should look for the quality inside each person and ignore external appearances, but as an old guy with a variety of experience, I can assure you that Americans do "tell books by their covers" every day in every way. Educated, professional people should not have expected anything different.
But think about it - a lawyer, pushing Middle-Eastern appearance to the limit and talking in an airplane about crashes and safety. He didn't expect a reaction? Was he probing for one? Is all this fuss just to give him the opportunity for a lawsuit?
Put aside your prejudices and predispositions for a moment, and consider why a smart American lawyer would put himself in this situation. How do we find out? If he does sue, there's a process called "discovery."
So, just who in this case is "extending the war on terror," perhaps for self-serving reasons? He has obtained his publicity. Watch carefully, what he does next.
Just thinking ...
I.
Actually, you need to change that to Jews. Jesus changed the stoning of adulterers in the laws of Abraham (Moses?) when he said let the ones without sin cast the first stone and no one could do it. So Christians haven't had that law ever. Jesus was a jew you know.
Here is two news flashes for you. Birth control is/was a church doctrine, not something mentioned in the bible. As for living the word of their religious texts, you need to look into Sharia law and how the theologies in the middle each (Iran) or the Taliban did things. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, a Muslim could just kill a non-Muslim or black person (Muslim or not) without fear of reprisal of law because the countries laws specifically stated it was ok if there was a reason. On the other hand, if you killed a Muslim for the same reasons, you would be tried and probably executed yourself if you lived that long. If you were a non Muslim, you wouldn't live long enough to see trial. In Iran, they too have different penalties depending on what your religion is. They do a lot better in tolerating other religions then the extremists in Afghanistan did, but the differences are there.
It almost seems as if your entire world view consists of the black man living down the road and some ill-gotten understanding of religions that you really have no clue about. Christian's aren't obligated to the old Abrahamic laws like the jews are. The old testament is included in the christian bible in order to provide the complete picture of the movement. It tells about God's elect and their struggles. Then when Jesus came into the picture, he showed that it was impossible to be pure and without sin and provided a way for salvation in the absence of purity. He also provided a way that others, could reach the kingdom of heaven who weren't one of God's elect. I think you should probably learn a little more about which your attempting to speak of before doing so.
And don't say "Hi, Jack" when greeting your friend at the airport.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Never under a different name or anonymously. I stand by all my words.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
...us whitey, crackers are never the target of racism!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Actually, Sayyid Qutub started out as an extremely liberal secular cultural thinker, but became somewhat disenchanted with Western Liberalism. However, he didn't begin writing such radical works until he was jailed under Gamal Abd an-Nasr, and tortured heavily. His philosophy was not actually aimed at the west per se, but rather at the secular government of Nasr, whose legitimacy he tried to challenge on the basis of the idea of "daar al-haarb" and "daar as-salaam."
The quote you show above is not about Western powers per se, but rather about the illegitimacy of the Nasr regime. The "daar al-harb" here is Egypt, not the US.
In fact, his ideas would probably have been better articulated had he NOT died from torture in prison. However, the important point here is that acts of torture actually significantly radicallized Qutub, and led to him producing this sort of highly malleable doctrine, something we should think about with respect to our own actions today (torture of possibly innocent people in Guantanamo, bombing of Gaza).
And IAGSIAS(I Am a Graduate Student in Arabic Studies)
I think your a little off on this. Getting kicked off a plane or refused service isn't really comparable to actually violating a woman's body. They weren't strip searched with their body cavities checked. It's more akin to if you don't want to get mugged, then don't flash your money, don't wear two hundred dollar shoes and don't load up with jewelry, Ipods, cell phones and such when going into certain places. You know, don't leave the $1500 camera on the dash of the car when parking on the side streets in downtown big city USA. It's true that it's the behavior of others that you are trying to control but it just isn't on the same level as rape.
I'm not the original poster but I think it is appropriate that if you expect people to treat you with respect, you can't dress like a hoodlum gansta when applying for a job or you can't dress in a $2000 three peace business suit while working at the unemployment office. People for whatever reasons, have impressions of others and what they should be like. You won't see someone dressed and talking like a pimp from a movie being elected as president of the US. If you dress in a way that instills fear into people, expect people to be scared in your presence. It really doesn't matter what rights you have or think you have, you know your dress and actions will cause issues when around strangers. You have to be willing to accept it or dress differently.
If fans of the Chicogo Bulls where know to blow themselves up or hijack air planes and crash them into buildings, I would say yes, it would be the same. There has been more then one incident where a Bulls fan or some other sports fan has been beaten or assaulted because they were wearing a shirt of the opposing team in an area of other fans. It used to be common to hear on the news about bar room brawls breaking out during the Ohio State- Michigan games where someone would wear a Michigan jersy into a bar in Ohio or vice versa and some of the locals didn't like it.
So yea, given different situations and scenarios, I think it is perfectly valid to expect people not to wear certain items at certain times. It doesn't matter if it is religious in nature or a sport logo or whatever.
Lol.. I love idiots like you. You really brighten my day up.
First, look at the definition if immigrant. It seems that once your born somewhere, your no longer an immigrant. Second, the Indians aren't indigenous to America, They came over just the same as us, just earlier. Finally, when we came over, we didn't do anything that the Indians weren't' already doing. We just done it better because we possessed technology that made our numbers more effective then theirs. If the Indians had the concept of the wheel when we arrived, things would probably have been completely different.
So based on what has been posted here, the message is "slaughter them till they learn their place, and when they come begging for peace it might be time to stop".
Yeah, Hitler did that too.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
...To find out, try a thought experiment: what if this discrimination wasn't occurring against people wearing clothing that implied a particular religious faith, but instead that they supported a particular sports team?...
This already takes place; in no. county San Diego schools, kids cannot wear sports teams apparel. this was the direct result of gang kids wearing [especially] Raiders gear.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Would that make it ok for every non-white to treat all whites as as problem culture, due to KKK violence?
Yes, it would, if we did not routinely speak out and act against the KKK in this country. That being said, as the years go on and I see how much we are being robbed blind in this country, I am starting to think, maybe I should never have, and in the future may not, speak out against the KKK. Maybe I'll join them.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Let's be generous and say that there are 1,000,000 Muslim suicide bombers or potential bombers out there. That's how many out of 1.2 billion? Less than 0.0001%. Does that seem like a risk you need to address with idiotic airplane security measures? You're more likely to be struck by lightning, but how many people wear lightning rods around?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I apologize about thinking the stoning of rape victims applied to Christians. You are correct.
Of course birth control is not in the Bible. (Interesting though that to you its "only" a church doctrine in the case of Catholicism) In Catholicism, while the Bible is primary, the Church does God's work on Earth and the Pope speaks the word of God in certain situations, including when it comes to the ban on use of birth control. (Oddly enough that ban is justified in part by the Old Testament but nevertheless).
Did I defend extremist Muslims, the Taliban or Iran? Please tell me where I did. Curious, I get involved in Amnesty International in part to stop discrimination against gays, women, people of all religions and political background.
I don't see why you bring up violent Muslim regimes. At no point did I bring up crimes committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus or others in the name of their respective Gods.
Some Christians disagree with your interpretation of Old Testament laws. It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Which leads back to my original point that not everyone applies equally or even knows every religious doctrine. Muslims who don't view "non-Muslims as the filthiest animals on earth" shouldn't be viewed negatively based on that anymore than Christians and Jews who don't support the use of the curse of Ham to discriminate against Africans should be viewed negatively based on it.
Actually it doesn't say that and secondly its not relevant. It's ridiculous to compare people who don't support an offensive reading of a religious text as akin to Nazis. How is it that people who don't support inter-religious violence are Nazis because other people support inter-religious violence? I'm an agnostic who doesn't live by that verse from that translation of the Quran too. Apparently that's equal to being a Nazi.
I've never read the Quran, so I can't comment, but here's a little fact about the Bible that I feel is too often misunderstood both by atheists and the American evangelical; and, BTW, therein lies some different views on Christianity between its branches, because the Vatican, for one, does not hold the Bible to be "perfect", but a product of its time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUyiQufyiK0
The video, BTW, is with vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno and he tells his tale of attending to a request for a "Bible study group" for astronauts. It's hilarious...
So, to come back to my main point. Christianity is about the New Testament. Supposedly, Christ brought the world the Evangelion, i.e., "the good message", the "good announcement."
That basically means you can just about forget the Old Testament or, rather, keep only "the good parts" (Thou shall not steal, etc.). In fact, Jesus is quoted as saying something along those lines.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I pay as much heed to those signs as I would expect an African American to pay attention to a "No Colored's" sign. The signs are meaningless, if a property owner wishes me to leave his property he can ask me to do so.
Specific places prohibit firearms by law, and of course I would never carry in such a place (school, national park, whatever). Otherwise, proving someone saw a sign and interpreted it correctly is impossible, and I'm aware of no law making the owners of public property law-makers via sign. If they want me to leave, they can inform me of it.
Some states prohibit such limitations, even for workplaces.
The state I live in, Florida, does, in fact have such a law. As you might predict, the crime rate has decreased as a result.
My blog
FYI: David is not an alien name to arabs and other muslims.
What "race" is Obama? Tiger Woods?
A Metis or something close to that word if it doesn't fit black-white parents. I never said mixing between races was impossible, I just stated that they exist. Damn, I've been in love with black girls (I'm caucasian) and I didn't see anything wrong with that; they were fantastic. Hell, I'm the first to ask that we just all fuck each others until we're all the same color (this in answer to your accusation of me being racist).
Ignoring that races exist won't solve the problem by itself. Accepting that they are morally equal or equivalent will. There are differences, though; how many white people owned the 100m world record?
It's like saying that "telling you what sex you are is sexist". Treating sexes as inexistent will not solve sexism, treating them with equal rights and moral values will. Same with races, same with age, same with religion.
Of Code And Men
This bigoted, racist trash of a comment is considered "insightful"?!?!?
Bark less. Wag more.
Let's be generous and say that there are 1,000,000 Muslim suicide bombers or potential bombers out there. That's not generous, that's conservative.
You clearly haven't looked into what gets taught in most Madrases, nore have you paid attention to the stated objectives of most Muslim governments.
You are right. It's called discrimination based on religion. I believe, that is right next to discrimination based on race in some law. And, maybe a layer can correct me, but I don't think that there are any laws that use the word racism.
There certainly is much disagreement about the importance of different parts of the Bible among Christians. I think its important for everyone to remember that most religions have very similar debates and disputes. That's why I responded to a comment implying that because something offensive was in the Quran it automatically implied all Muslims lived by it equally.
(posting AC because of moderations)
Fail.
At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
Really? Just attending a Madrasa, or listening to your government's foreign policy stance, is sufficient to make someone strap on a bomb and blow themselves up?
Ask yourself this: If suicide bombers are so easily made, then why aren't there more of them? Think of what you could accomplish with 100 suicide bombers in the U.S. if you just sent them to low security areas like mall food courts, bus stations, theaters, and crowded shopping areas during the Christmas rush. If 100 suicide bombers exploded all at once, the U.S. would quite understandably lose its mind, and carry out the exact sort of war on terror that bin Laden and his ilk want.
Yet the U.S. has seen only 19 on its own territory in the last decade, and less than a hundred in the first world in the same period. If we include Iraq since 2003, we're still under 1,100. If there really are millions of people who are a real threat to commit a suicide bombing, shouldn't we have seen more of them by now?
Besides, even granting tens of millions of them, that's still less than a hundredth of a percent odds that the Muslim you're sitting next to is a terrorist.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
..I also can't help but wonder aloud about the properties of cold working aluminum sometimes, especially on long flights, watching the wings flex.. and flex.. :)
..don't panic
200 years ago, the USA's intervention in the middle east consisted of giving the Barbary pirates a damn good thrashing; which, frankly, they deserved.
FGD 135
They can indeed select who they wish to carry, and they selected these people by selling them a ticket.
Seriously, why should you be allowed to renege on providing a service that you've already been paid for? And why should you be allowed to construct a T&C get-out clause that lets you if you can't by default?
FGD 135
Yeah, I know. But for some reason the Arab/Muslim terrorists are never named David. Maybe it would not sound foreign enough to the Americans ears.
I'm aware of no law making the owners of public property law-makers via sign. If they want me to leave, they can inform me of it.
Well, then I'll just assume you aren't in Texas, because this is covered pretty clearly in the mandatory training you receive before getting a concealed carry permit.
Under the Texas Penal Code, if you carry a concealed handgun onto a property that was properly posted with conforming signage, you have committed a Class A misdemeanor. A Class A misdemeanor conviction will get your carry permit revoked for 5 years, plus a 2 year waiting period before you can reapply.
Don't take my word for it. I posted the link to the relevant code in my original message. There's even an FAQ.
Well, no. The pope doesn't speak for god. As for speaking the word of god, anyone can do that by reading the bible aloud or reciting it from memory. They have to be careful to understand it's meaning which is why the early churches objected to having the bible accessible in the common language. The church however, has become what Jesus railed against and there are many different churches out there beside the catholic church. While most other churches sprang out from the catholic church, that has more to do with controls originally in place then the word of god itself.
Actually, yes you did. You said "most people don't read their religious texts and live by them word for word" in replying to a comment about the quran. This is obviously false if you look a Sharia law. I listed a few of the extreme examples and now it appear that your taking offense. But you obviously don't understand the muslims or their ways. In Europe right now, you have politicians who think it might be good to put Sharia law in beside the public law so the Islamic Churches can govern and charge people who aren't even connected to it. The chief justice in England, Lord Phillips who is/was the top Judicial officer in the land before recently has said that Muslims in Brittan should be able to use Sharia law.
In other words, your totally conflating the situation with little knowledge about it and presenting it as something no different then modern Catholicism or Christianity.
You brought up an incorrect statement about comparing Christians to Muslims in response to a comment about Muslims and the quran. You used the words most which is complete hogwash as I have pointed out with Sharia law. The entire premise of your comment was flawed from the start and I pointed that out and gave some examples. The presence of Sharia law itself is enough to show your comment to be wrong, I just pointed to two of the most extreme countries I know of. There are quite a few more.
Some people call themselves christian just to fit in. Anyways, there are various sets of laws in the bible surrounding the time frames or people who introduced them. Only a few of them are in dispute and they aren't in the area of stoning adulterers. On the other hand, Sharia law encompasses a majority of non free countries and quite a few of those in the middle east and Africa which are considered free. This means that the law of the land is based on the literal readings of the quran as interpreted by a few people. This means that in those places, there is no room for d
The way your post is worded, it appears that you are hoping for this to happen and/or inciting it. Reported to https://tips.fbi.gov/
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Search "pact of Umar" for the definition of "peace". Google it.
The peace minorities have under muslim rule is like the peace jews had under nazi rule. It certainly was peaceful, in the end, on the many graveyards.
> Just don't get me started on Delta.
Well, perhaps you shouldn't have implied that Delta is worse than this AirTran fiasco if you didn't want to explain???
Seriously, I fly twice a week and 90% of the complaints I hear from casual travelers are absolutely ridiculous. I was on a flight from DTW to a small Pennsylvania airport. It was delayed a couple hours awaiting the inbound aircraft which had run into rough weather. Then it finally took off and by the time it got to the destination airport, a dense fog (1/8 mi visibility) had rolled in making it impossible to land. We circled for an hour or two and when the weather did not clear we had to turn back to DTW because we were running out of fuel. By this time it was quite late and there were no more flights to this airport that day, and due to the holiday there were no available seats on subsequent flights for two days. The airline would not spring for hotel. The Hawaiian Shirt Brigade on the flight WAS IRATE and screamed at both the pilots and the gate agents. They believed they were entitled to (a) free hotel rooms, (b) free tickets on an alternate airline.
Surprise, the airlines are currently unable to control the weather. There is no reason they should be responsible for paying for your hotel room in this instance. There is no reason they should incur the cost of seating you on a competing airline. What is the point of screaming at the PILOTS for deciding not to land in unsafe weather? If you're on a toll road and part of it is closed due to snow, would you expect the toll company to do anything at all?
In my experience, people who don't travel very often simply don't understand the complexities involved and turn all of their travel-related frustration into airline-directed anger. To be honest, the ignorance of infrequent travelers is my main personal annoyance with travel. I don't think asking for a little common sense is unreasonable.
Firstly, most religious people nevertheless seem to have a functioning system of morality. They're typically highly inventive when reconciling it with their religion, reinterpreting and ignoring it as necessary to enable themselves to function as normal upstanding human beings. And that's just the ones who've gone so far as to actually read the text they're supposedly living their lives by.
In order for this sentence to be true, there needs to be a universal, singular and unchanging (over time) definition of "upstanding human beings" in a moral context.
That definition would form, obviously, an ideology, and a religion.
So what you're saying, in essence, is that it doesn't matter that people profess hate, and keep killing one another, in the end they'll follow your religion.
And that formulation exposes the statement for the stupidity that it is. There is NO universal standard for human behavior. There are religions (and anything that actively steers human behavior is a religion in this view), with consequences. Communism would be a religion in this view, as would capitalism, in addition to the traditionally accepted ideologies. This obviously also means that there are consequences to following certain religions. This makes one religion better than another. There are also consequences to your neighbours/"society" following certain religions, which is what makes some religions totalitarian and others support freedom.
Islam is a bad (has terrible consequences/quality of life for it's adherents as evidenced by the many failed muslim states) totalitarian (will be imposed by society with physical violence if given the chance, again see any muslim country) religion.
So why don't you answer the question. WHAT is that magical description of a "upstanding moral human being" that you claim every muslim will spontaneously accept in lieu of islam and it's massacres ?
I hope you have a DAMN good answer. I really do. But I fear the evident is true : that you're unable to imagine situations you're not directly confronted with.
Did I defend extremist Muslims, the Taliban or Iran? Please tell me where I did. Curious, I get involved in Amnesty International in part to stop discrimination against gays, women, people of all religions and political background.
You defended the religion itself. The only thing that makes "extremist" muslims extremist is their adherence to that religion, and it's commands for massacring.
What makes a muslim extremist is islam. What may make a muslim moderate is, for example, capitalism (e.g. tourism).
The exact same goes for violent muslim regimes. What makes them violent is that specific religion.
So yes, you defended extremist muslims and sharia law. You defended the stoning of women. You see, they're both parts of what you defended.
You're like someone stating how he loves cars, and can't understand why people find it strange that you hate wheels and engines. The first does not exist without the other. There is no islam without sharia. There is no islam without stonings, "violent muslim regimes" and other reprehensible things. It just doesn't exist.
I wonder if you'd apply the same standard to nazis. After all, the nazis of today aren't the ones that gassed Jews. The KKK members of today aren't the ones that hanged Blacks. One can fill this list.
I assume you're perfectly tolerant of these ideologies too. And just because they scream "we'll burn your houses down in the night", in no way makes any black person nervous.
We should be tolerant.
"kill all blacks" should sound in every night. "Gas the Jews" should be allowed to be blown out of loudspeakers over every neighbourhood. Nazi propaganda should be spread on television.
Preventing that, after all, would be racist against KKK members and Nazis. (and yes freedom of political opinion and spreading said opinion is part of the human rights).
I assume you are either Canadian, European, or one of leftie Americans.
I do come from a place where people are fairly well-educated, yes.
Now imagine trying to live your wonderful life in Israel. Wondering if rockets are going to land in your office. Wondering if that kid on the bus... ...
Still beats the heck up of the life in the West Bank - more people killed, unemployment greater than the US and Europe have ever seen, foreign military checkpoints to go through constantly, bulldozing of a lot of new construction, foreign settlement using the water you need to live to water their lawns, no ability to leave,
They have tried on several occasion to make peace with those people, and what do the get?
Probably the same response that you expect when your peace proposal requires the other side to have no military, allows your side to control the borders, and leaves your settlements and checkpoints inside the other country intact. As bad as some Palestinians have behaved, I don't expect them to take a deal that would essentially make them second-class citizens of the eastern half of Israel.
And now they go forward into a future where it is uncertain on whether they can count on there staunchest ally in a few weeks.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi are all as pro-Isreal as the rest of the Washington politicians that meet frequently with the AIPAC. The worst probable scenario for Israel with regard to the change of administration is that they might have to pull back out of Gaza if they want all of their American financial support (assuming that they go through with a ground invasion).
You are just simply narrowing down the pool of possible suspects because those that wish to do us the most harm tend to be of the Muslim faith.
Right, because no other nutjobs would carry out a terrorist attack, and because they can't start recruiting white people and women, and because they couldn't possibly hide their religious affiliation.
There's nothing like the formal "if you post a sign of such and such wording in such a such position" law like in TX where I live. I certainly feel no moral obligation to honor any such sign, as the weapon is on my person and I know I have no ill intentions. The legal obligation is mostly a moot point as nobody would know, if they did know they could ask me to leave and I've never heard of anyone being arrested for simply possessing in opposition to a sign.
At some point you have to realize that it's going
to be a fight to the death. Why drag that out for
the next 5 centuries? Many more people will suffer
and die, on both sides, if this keeps going.
Life is disgusting. Live with it, or die.
Right now, a simple genocide would eliminate 100%
of just a few generations on one side, plus XX% of
those generations on the winning side. There, done!
Dragging things out means XX% of every generation
for the next N centuries. That's much worse.
..about this whole affair. The Muslim passengers were headed for a "religious conference" (Wahhabi madrassa?) when they got into this incident. Promptly afterwards ,they were "represented" by two very shady organizations, the 'Muslim Public Affairs Council' (A Wahhabist front) and the 'Council of American-Islamic relations' (who have links to HAMAS). If it were a moderate organization like the "California center for Islamic pluralism" or something similar that was representing them then I would be more sympathetic, but two militant Islamist hate groups suddenly muster up the funds to "represent" them? It sounds like a planned publicity/propaganda stunt meant to conjure up sympathy.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
What nonsense. The kaffiyeh is a bedouin or "palestinian" man's garb predominantly. When referring to women's veils or headscarves, you would probably mean the hijab or the even more concealing niqab.
Get your terminology right, before you try to educate the trolls...
K.
I think its interesting that you can make pronouncements about who is and who is not really Christian and what constitutes proper Christian doctrine. Are you in possession of some spiritual knowledge that gives you the authority to make these pronouncements?
What evidence do you have that most western Muslims fit those extremist stereotypes?
Sharia "law" as it applies in England is a form of binding arbitration that is chosen by the parties involved. No party is forced to have their disputes tried in a Sharia court. If two people have a dispute and both legitimately choose to have that dispute decided by an arbiter, they are free to do so. I would advocate against people making that choice but it is their choice to make not mine.
Sharia law encompasses a majority of non-free countries? That's a possibility although the most populous non-free country, China, is a huge exception. I don't support Sharia law, especially in its most extreme forms, as the law of the land. It is barbaric. But all you've proven is that some Muslim countries use some form of Sharia law (its not as extreme in every country). Do you actually think everyone in the country or even 50% of the people in those countries support every application of this law?
You continue to assume all Muslims act the same as an extremist subsection without any evidence that to support that generalization. Where is your evidence? You seem to
I was puzzled on my first visit to US, which was to South Carolina... I saw signs on entering the mall: "no concealed weapons permitted".
This made me wonder
K.
You really think that an 8th century agreement, one that scholars don't think is a fraud, has bearing on the beliefs of all 1 billion Muslims? If you do, you're not just a sectarian prick, you're a fool as well.
You're really that deluded that you think all 1 billion Muslims are responsible for extremist interpretations, past and present? Just like Jews are responsible for killing Christ?
I support the rights of people to express their opinion but that doesn't mean I support every single one of those opinions. I don't agree with Christians who hate gays, Muslims who hate women or white people who hate black people. I'm also mature enough and have had enough interaction with people to know that not everyone of the people in those three general groups feel that way.
If you cared to really study the statistics, you would notice two things.
Read more (news.bbc.co.uk is a good start), get out more, and frequent a few sites dealing with English Law as it relates to statistics (and/or assaults and blades).
K.
Aluminum doesn't show fatigue failure. There is no 'tell' before the break, it just goes.
First of all, I did no such thing. I said some people just call themselves christian to fit in. The meaning behind that it that they are no more christian in their faith then a label will allow them to be. You can put on a Tshirt that says worlds greatest Dad and it doesn't mean that you are dad or a great one at that. It just means that you put a label on yourself.
Second, proper christian doctrine is that Jesus said and did. Don't confuse Christian doctrine with Church doctrine. If you had a relationship with him, or at least invested the time to understand other people's relationship with him, you would know these things. Jesus did and said certain things and anyone claiming to be a christian can't dispute that unless they are attempting to pervert the entire religion. You know, they call Christians Christians solely because Jesus Christ and their belief in him. Otherwise they would just be Jews. Of course you understand that Jesus was a Jew right?
I didn't say anything about western Muslims. And neither did you. You lead a generic Muslim statement and most of them are in places other then the west.
Actually, no. Sharia law isn't in England at all, the English law of the land controls everything, even the ownership of slaves which Sharia law allows.
I said most and Countries as in plural and you come back with one country. Amazing, simply amazing. Do you even know what your talking about? It's readily apparent that you don't know what I'm talking about. You see, I wasn't attempting to prove that you support anything, I was attempting to show that your summation was completely incorrect and I did that already. And yes, they do support application of the law because if and when they go against it, they find themselves dead. Whether they personally support it doesn't really matter because they will always publicly support it which does nothing but encourage and enforce it.
Contrary to your belief, the extremist subsection is the majority of Muslims. I never said all Muslims are that way now did I?
BTW, the concentration of Sharia law covered countries exist primarily in Eurasia and Africa. If you combine the number of Muslims living in North and South America, all of Europe, and the Oceania countries you will have 8 times as many Muslims living in Africa and 20 times more in Eurasia. BTW, Eurasia and Africa have all the Sharia law covered countries. Imagine that. Anyways, Most as you said was simply incorrect. Now accept that and move on.
Really? Just attending a Madrasa, or listening to your government's foreign policy stance, is sufficient to make someone strap on a bomb and blow themselves up?
Apparently, yes. Or haven't you noticed that the number of (suicide or not) bombings has been steadily rising ?
Besides, even granting tens of millions of them, that's still less than a hundredth of a percent odds that the Muslim you're sitting next to is a terrorist.
Perhaps, but it's far higher than the likelihood of sitting next to a Christian/Jewish/Hindu bomber. This is the issue at hand, you may choose to ignore the threat, but that policy is just plain dumb, don't you think ?
You're extremely deluded to think that perhaps 50 million (neo)nazis are responsible for the crimes of perhaps 100.000 of them 50 years in the past.
So why do you discriminate against nazi's ? Why would you go against them just because they hate (and sometimes try to kill) gays ? That's just ... discrimination. You're not ready to support a nazi president ? That's racist !
Not every nazi, you know, feels the same way. Some don't want to kill ALL blacks. You're just a mean racist for discriminating against nazis just because they hate gays, blacks, and so on.
I hope you can see the sarcasm in this and the problem with your point of view.
Why don't you tell me under exactly what conditions christians live in Egypt ?
After all, it couldn't possibly be that agreement, since "everyone thinks it's a fraud", right ?
And yes, again, technically you're correct. Not "all" muslims believe in it. Only Sunni. That basically means everyone except Iran, which is technically not "all" of them, just > 95%.
Why don't you check whether you're right first, then start insulting people ? You know, you might actually learn something.
But of course like all progressives, you're bound to learn something you won't like at all.
> It only makes them trespassers if they are asked to leave and they don't.
No. Trespassing is intentionally entering someone's property without a lawful excuse, such as an invitation. If you are asked to leave and don't obey, you cannot claim to have entered the grounds unintentionally any more. Similar if there is a fence or visible signs (Like "Do not enter", or "No Weapons"): You may still try to feign ignorance, but then it is up to the judge to decide on the plausibility of that.
From Wikipedia:
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
You, my friend, are the one that needs to think for yourself. You seem to think that tolerance for tolerance sakes, is really a social advancement, when really, it is part of an overall set of tools advanced by corporate interests designed to reduce us to interchangable parts. Frankly, christians sticking with christians, jews with jews, and so, families preferring family members, seems to offer more lasting, real promise, than, some wishy washy corporate social model that has brought us 10% unemployment, 10 trillion dollars of government debt, and a total dislocation of the world economy as the rich line up for a bailout at our expense. These parachial values that I mentioned might have some problems, but, they did produce a viable economy and lasting culture that persisted successfully for almost 2,000 years. What does your corporate multiculturalism done for humanity lately, that compares to the culture that produced Raphael and Bach?
This is my sig.
When the increased rate still comes in under a hundredth of a percent, so what? Or have you added a lightning rod to the clothes you wear every day? Besides, virtually all those bombings occur in 1) Iraq, 2) Israel, or 3) Sri Lanka. Your odds of preventing a terrorist attack on the flight from Boston to Miami just dropped another couple orders of magnitude.
No, I don't. I think it's dumb to harass innocent Muslims on the infinitesimal chance that you might prevent a terrorist attack. If nothing else, all you're accomplishing is making the perspective of radicalized Muslims more accurate. The cure is worse than the statistical disease.
When was the last time a suicide bomber was actually caught by someone overhearing him rehearsing his plans out loud as he boarded the plane? Why aren't people such as yourself concerned about just how counterproductive most of our security theater is?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You'd attempt peace. Over the next N centuries,
perhaps a billion people suffer and die in Gaza.
There currently aren't that many people in Gaza.
See the problem? You cause MORE death.
Why aren't people such as yourself concerned about just how counterproductive most of our security theater is?
Actually, my original point is that I'm entirely unsympathetic to the 'innocent' Muslims ejected from their airplane seats over some 'unusual' comments. My initial thoughts, after reading the news item, were: 1.) Wow, they must have been saying something quite weird for anyone (stupid Americans) to have noticed something unusual. 2.) Wow, they must have been speaking quite loudly in order to be heard above the normal roar of noise inside an commercial airplane during passenger loading. 3.) Wow, the fact that they were ejected, no questions asked is very strange, I'll bet there's more to this story that we're not being told.
My response to all this, and the snivelling about how their rights were being trampled upon was that I'm unsympathetic to their plight primarily becuase the Muslim community has brought this upon themselves. I stand by that statement. We never hear the Muslim community being up in arms about a Muslim suicide bomber smearing the good (?) name of Islam, but we always see a fanatical rage about something as innocuous as a political cartoon in a foreign newspaper
Now, I entirely agree that so far no actions that I've seen DHS take are in any way effective towards preventing a determined terrorist from doing just about anything they could do previously. Yes, I agree the vast majority of what I see DHS doing seems to be a complete waste of time, nothing more than a show. However, I think back to my days in the U.S. Navy many years ago, and wonder about the whole 'show of force' doctrine. While I was living through it, I used to laugh at the idiocy of it too. However, now with the perspective of hindsight, and hopefully, increased wisdomI think perhaps that 'show' was a significant part of the overall strategy. I'm of the opinion that there was more to the show than meets the eye, if you'll excuse the expression. The show really was more than just a show, because every once in a while we did make things go boom! I'm pretty sure there's more to DHS than the mess they've made of airport security - at least I hope so.
Firstly, most religious people nevertheless seem to have a functioning system of morality. They're typically highly inventive when reconciling it with their religion, reinterpreting and ignoring it as necessary to enable themselves to function as normal upstanding human beings. And that's just the ones who've gone so far as to actually read the text they're supposedly living their lives by.
In order for this sentence to be true, there needs to be a universal, singular and unchanging (over time) definition of "upstanding human beings" in a moral context.
No, there doesn't. They merely need to be able to function within the society in which they find themselves, wherever and whenever that is. Human's innate (evolved) sense of morality is being initialized with very different parameters now compared to 1400, 2000 and 4000 years ago - and different parameters in the US vs the middle east. It's the vast difference between modern western societies and ancient middle eastern ones that's the CAUSE of this conflict between ancient religion and current morality.
That definition would form, obviously, an ideology, and a religion.
I don't see why it would form a religion, it doesn't seek to explain anything about the state of the universe. It's merely a set of responses to stimuli - feeling guilty after stealing, feeling angry after seeing stealing, etc. Most people are not even very good at stating what moral rules they're using - they think of rationalizations for intuitive moral decisions which turn out to conflict with answer they give to later questions.
So what you're saying, in essence, is that it doesn't matter that people profess hate, and keep killing one another, in the end they'll follow your religion.
No, I'm saying that whatever religion they follow if they feel it's OK to hate and kill then that's what they'll do. And if they want to be nice to, say, gay people then that's what they'll do, too. They'll find a way later to reconcile it with their religion (and they certainly won't follow MY religion because I haven't got one). The local religion will, I'm sure, influence how an individual's own morality turns out, but it won't be the only influence and I don't believe that morality is a purely learnt trait. Once you've GOT that morality and those moral feelings of guilt, disgust, etc., you can't escape from them just by reading a religious text. They're inevitably going to affect your acceptance and interpretation (and translation) of that text.
BTW, I can highly recommend the book 'Moral Minds' if you're interested in this sort of thing. It's written more from a scientific point of view than a philosophical or theological one.
Not always. In many cities, it is illegal to carry firearms into certain places by city ordinance even if you would otherwise be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
City ordnances normally can not trump state law; depending on how the law is phrased. Furthermore, most of these signs are actually not legal, they serve only to assure the non-carrying public guns are not allowed despite the fact they are legally allowed. Where authoritative signs are legally binding, very specific signage is required. Signs which do not meet the legal requirements are not legally binding.
In many places, despite signs reassuring the public, carrying guns into airports is often legal, so long as you do not attempt to carry it into federally secured zones, whereby federal law trump state laws. This is why you often see additional signage indicating guns are not allowed inside the federally secured areas. Granted, I don't know I would be in a hurry to test this as I've read several accounts where police were confused about gun laws and owner's rights, and arrested (later released) gun owners for legally carrying.
When it comes to gun laws, Police seem to be on the cutting edge of ignorance of the laws in their own area. Don't confuse legality with police knowledge. Many gun owners have been surprised by the massive number of problems readily created by large numbers of ignorant police officers - even when laws, statues, and ordinances are readily available to address their ignorance.
Regardless of signage, you should help to encourage gun ownership and carrying as both open and concealed carry have pretty consistently shown to reduce violent crime in areas where carrying is legal. Inversely, some of the worst violent crimes are committed in gun-free zones. And statistically, violent crime has pretty consistently increased in areas where guns are banned. Regardless of your own gun desires, if safety is important to you, actively discourage gun-free zones as you are safer outside of them.
Have you ever read the Bible?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is how it always starts. Why don't we just make all muslims wear fucking yellow stars? Let's stop them travelling and confiscate all their money and put them in prison, obviously they're just funding terrorism.
Arsehole.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Does the fact that you haven't heard about Muslims condemning suicide bombers mean it doesn't happen?
I think this is the crucial flaw in your position that the Muslim community has brought this on themselves. I've seen some condemnations, but I've also seen complaints that the media doesn't give the same coverage to moderate Muslim statements against radical Islamists as they do to the actions of terrorists. Think about the nature of media coverage, and I'm sure you'll see the bind that both reporters and moderate Muslims are in. "If it bleeds it leads" is the saying in the news business, and a moment's reflection tells you that fearmongering coverage will almost always trump reassuring statements about how not all Muslims are trying to blow you up.
Here's some of the results from a quick google search for "muslims condemn suicide bombings". The first link is a list of public condemnations by Muslim leaders and groups.
Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
Landmark Islamic Ruling Unequivocally Condemns Suicide Bombings
Minister: Muslim decree to condemn suicide bombings
U.K. Sunnis condemn London suicide attacks
Grand Sheikh condemns suicide bombings
Suicide Bombing
INDONESIA: Muslim leaders condemn suicide bombing
A sampling of fatwas and other statements by Muslim individuals and groups condemning terrorist attacks
Muslim Scholars Condemn Terror U.S. Islamic Leaders Issue Edict Against Attacks On Civilians
They get some coverage, but no stories get multiple days/outlets to repeat the message the way an event like a bombing does. The problem isn't that Muslims don't condemn suicide attacks, it's that their condemnations don't get enough play, so people like you think that the Muslim community silently condones the actions of the extremists.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Guns carry less bang for the buck.
Now how could I possibly argue with logic like that? :)
People wanting to do violence will do so with or without a gun, as England has amply demonstrated. The massive utility of guns is simple: they allow you to defend yourself against someone bigger and stronger. Guns put you and someone offering violence on even terms, as least physically. If you don't think that's useful, you've probably never been physically attacked. If you were an elderly female living in a dangerous area, your values might be different.
Both cars and guns are useful for preserving individual freedom in daily life. Which is more valuable is a matter of your personal values and circumstances.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Do you honestly, seriously believe that a terrorist will be able to use that tactic ever again? Do you honestly, seriously believe that the post-911 airport security did anything to make terrorism harder? Hardening the cockpit doors was a great idea, the rest is all rubbish.
Terrorists don't hate airplanes. Even if you imagine that airport security were somehow effective, it's a ridiculous waste of resources to pick one of 1000 targets and spend 10 or 100 times as much hardening it at the expense of all the other targets.
And in any case, the average deaths per year from terrorism remains statistically insignificant. If the TSA serves any purpose beyond conditioning people to accept blatantly unconstitutional searches, I don't know what that purpose would be.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
On the whole, people take gun safety far more seriously than driving safety. Even the craziest rednecks I've known (and I've known some crazy ones, to be sure) took gun safety very seriously. Every state I've heard of that issues carry permits requires some sort of minimal training course and demonstration of some sort that you know the basics of gun safety, similar to the requirements to get a driver's license (though practicing gun safety is far simpler than driving safely).
I'm not sure why you think I said that "everyone" should be armed. My point was that a gun being (legally) carried by someone without the intent of causing violence is less dangerous in practice than a car being driven by someone without the intent of causing violence.
Also the fear people have that some crazy person will threaten violence, and some gun nut will respond by shooting everything that moves, is complete fantasy. In every real world situation I've ever heard of, the reverse has been true: most people, even those carrying guns, often even police officers, cower in fear in the face of surprising random violence.
As far as your "MAD" scenario: in general each state that has allowed concealed carry in recent decades has seen no particular rise in gun deaths, and some decline in overall crime (though without strong correlation to the carry law), during the following few years.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Do you honestly, seriously believe that a terrorist will be able to use that tactic ever again?
Yes. Look at how succesful it was. There are still ripples of it today.
Do you honestly, seriously believe that the post-911 airport security did anything to make terrorism harder?
Yes. Everybody's so frickin jumpy about every little thing I doubt they find themselves with much opportunity they're willing to try to exploit.
Even if you imagine that airport security were somehow effective, it's a ridiculous waste of resources to pick one of 1000 targets and spend 10 or 100 times as much hardening it at the expense of all the other targets.
I agree. Unfortunately what you're saying is entirely unhelpful. There is just bitching there, no solution. I don't know the answer, either. If we leave ourselves vulnerable, we seriously risk another attack. If we tighten things up, we do the terrorists' jobs for them. Nobody wants to be responsible for a repeat of the tragedy. I know I wouldn't.
And in any case, the average deaths per year from terrorism remains statistically insignificant.
It's also a very narrow view of the situation. 9-11 was far more than just the deaths of 3,000 people. If you seriously want to propose dropping the 'War on Terror', you have to address that. (And boy would I be happy if you succeeded.)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The downside of you not reporting this guy was that his site didn't work. The downside of the FBI not taking the appropriate steps to actually check the reports on this family (which turned out to be false) is that everybody died. See the difference?
You seem to be answering different questions than I asked.
No one is ever going to be able to hijack an airliner and fly it into a target again, because the flight crews and passengers won't cooperate. It didn't even work later in the day on 9/11!
All the ridiculous farce that is the TSA does is move the attack. If a terrorist wanted to blow up an airplace (given hijacking is out these days), it's still trivial to get past the security perimiter - just not as a passenger. An ordinary pre-911 metal detector protects us against any real threat, the rest is security theater, not security. Worse, the long security lines at many airports are better targets than airplanes: more people gathered together, and no security at that point.
There *is* a solution to security that doesn't involve wasteful (and seriously damaging to our rights) security checkpoints: human intelligence (hire people to infiltrate the terrorist organizations). 9/11 was not a failure of airport security, but a failure of HUMINT, caused directly by both underfunding and Carter's stupid rule that we should hire nefarious people as spys (does that make sense to anyone?). Real security experts know this, but the TSA is a jobs program now, so we'll never be shed of it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No one is ever going to be able to hijack an airliner and fly it into a target again, because the flight crews and passengers won't cooperate. It didn't even work later in the day on 9/11!
A year or two ago I would have believed you. However, it would appear that 9-11 is becoming a distant memory. You're not the first person I've run across here that remembers 9-11 as being the day that 3,000 people died but doesn't remember that it easily could have been 25,000. Richard Reid has been utterly forgotten. The economic disaster that caused has been forgotten. (I'll never cease to be amazed by that.) Honestly, it would not surprise me one little bit if in a couple of years from now people only remember that two buildings in NYC suddenly went missing. Never be able to hijack a plane? Never?! Bull-fucking-shit. Never in the next year? Two years? Five years? Sure, no problem believing that. But the memory's fading. give it a decade and they'll have no trouble doing it again.
But that's entirely academic. You see, the planes don't actually need to be hijacked. A whole 3 months after 9-11 there was an attempt to blow up an airliner via an explosive hidden in a shoe. I've referred to this already, the man's name was Richard Reid. Even at the height of 9-11 paranoia, he managed to get on a plane and attempt to detonate a device. The people on the plane were saved only by his incompetence. Here's a fun thought: What would happen to the U.S. if there was one blown-up plane a month?
An ordinary pre-911 metal detector protects us against any real threat...
Yeah, it stopped the 19 hijackers and Richard Reid....
Worse, the long security lines at many airports are better targets than airplanes: more people gathered together, and no security at that point.
That doesn't have the same effect as the wreckage of a plane. Besides, it's a good deal harder to kill as many people in a situation like that than it is when the plane's in flight.
There *is* a solution to security that doesn't involve wasteful (and seriously damaging to our rights) security checkpoints: human intelligence (hire people to infiltrate the terrorist organizations). 9/11 was not a failure of airport security, but a failure of HUMINT, caused directly by both underfunding and Carter's stupid rule that we should hire nefarious people as spys (does that make sense to anyone?). Real security experts know this, but the TSA is a jobs program now, so we'll never be shed of it.
As an addition to security, I think that'd be great. As a replacement? Sorry man, I'm not sold. I get what you're saying, but when the only line of defense is the gov't finding out about it.. *sigh* I'm sorry but even with 'nefarious spies' I just don't see that being reliably effective. I have no hard feelings about you thinking less of me for that, but that's just handing extremists an exploit to use.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't we just keep things in context and understand that fear is a rational behavior that people display. If you act in a manner that triggers that, you are going to instill fear and resentment into them. This is a basic law or instinct of survival born into most Humans.
You or they are free to dress however they want. They just need to realize that their dress can and will entice reactions out of people and they must deal with it. There is a time and a place for everything, currently, that place and time for some might be inconvenient but it's there and they need to realize that not all people know them personally.
Nothing to say to that one? Realise how stupid what you said was now?
Err... AirTran is a big company. Less than millions of dollars will not make them think twice. Hell, even if they had to pay millions, and put up with boycotts/people not flying, remember they are based out of the South. That whole "kick the scary minorities off the plane" may more than pay for itself in "AirTran is safe" thinking.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The Pope can't ban the use of birth control. Million of Catholics worldwide use birth control in all its forms and look at the Pope with derision in regards to this topic.
The Pope can only mandate in matters of faith, and even there his powers are quite narrow.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since when a person dressed as a Muslim is a threat?
It is statements like the one you just made what makes this world a sorry place to live in.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You keep confusing two threats. The threat of "blowing up an airplane" is trivial: the risk to you in flying is less than the risk of driving to the airport, and the TSA does no better job of protecting you from this than the pre-TSA security did.
The threat of "hijacking an airplane" is more serious, but that is the sort of tactic that only works once. The TSA makes us *more* vulnerable to threats other than "blowing up an airplane", both by creating a juicy new target for terrorists that cannot be protected by security, and by simple diversion of resources from important things.
Far more important than the above: the TSA is a constitutional abomination. Admittedly, we gave up the 4th amendment for the War on Drugs(TM), but this is far more outrageous in its scope. Liberty really is more important than security, and the TSA doesn't even improve security, it just makes makes people who haven't thought about the issues feel better.
Your life will be better if you stop living in fear.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You keep confusing two threats. The threat of "blowing up an airplane" is trivial: the risk to you in flying is less than the risk of driving to the airport, and the TSA does no better job of protecting you from this than the pre-TSA security did.
There is no confusion. Crashing a plane into a building == terrorism. Blowing up a plane in mid-flight == terrorism. You don't need to crash planes into buildings to cause effects that exceed just the loss of life. Make air-travel scary again and the economy's going to tank, again.
The threat of "hijacking an airplane" is more serious, but that is the sort of tactic that only works once.
Wrong. Only works 'once' for a period of time. You cannot remember the details of 9-11 a mere 7 years later, you cannot expect the rest of the world to.
Far more important than the above: the TSA is a constitutional abomination. Admittedly, we gave up the 4th amendment for the War on Drugs(TM), but this is far more outrageous in its scope. Liberty really is more important than security, and the TSA doesn't even improve security, it just makes makes people who haven't thought about the issues feel better.
Agreed.
Your life will be better if you stop living in fear.
You're right, ignorance is bliss. Now how about suggesting a practical solution instead of one that trips over its own logic? "What we're doing now is creating a target! So let's drop our guard and expand the list of potential targets!"
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You can. Non-concealed weapons are legal in many places. A friend of my brother slung his unloaded shotgun over his shoulder and walked through the mall with it (they don't have any signs prohibiting weapons) just for the fun of it. The mall of course called the cops, who arrived, verified it was unloaded, and then told the mall they can't do anything about it because he didn't do anything illegal. Course at that point they got smart enough to ask him to leave, which of course, he did.
Oh no. I figure it's pointless though.
You'd rather keep people killing each other
for as long as possible, ensuring maximum death.
Hitler was a whole different matter. Without him,
the Jews and non-Jews of Europe weren't seriously
into killing each other.
It's totally different with Muslims. They also
like killing Christians, Athiests, Hindus, and
everybody else. (note the recent troubles in
India, the latest of many) We can't simply get
rid of some crazy leader to civilize them.
Also, it was possible to eliminate Hitler without
then creating Israel. We didn't need to make a
special country for the Jews.
Not at all. I want the western world to stop supporting Israel while it slaughters people. Not once has Israel suspended the building of settlements and the removal of Palestinians from their land & homes. Until they do that they are the aggressor.
You are the one that brought up genocide.
Over there, slaughter is a given. The only choices
to be made are:
1. who dies?
2. slow or fast?
Sorry, but "no slaughter" is not an option.
Islam is not compatible with that.
Prediction: because of demographic changes taking
place in Israel, it won't be many generations
until Israel becomes Islamic. Many refugees will
flee, and the remaining Jews will be executed.
Unlike in Germany, nobody there will be sorry.
So my best guess is:
1. Jews
2. one century
Every time I think I've dealt with the craziest slashdotter around, along comes someone like you to prove me wrong.
I'm just assuming that you are Jewish, please tell me I'm wrong. If you are from that background though and have these thoughts I would be very interested in how this came to be that within a few generations the persecuted become the persecutors.
All Israel has to do is stop expanding their border. Pretend that savage muslims are invading all you want, but Israel is the aggressive destroyer of good will. End of story.
Nope, not a Jew.
Israel is 1/6 muslim. No kidding. They even get
the right to vote, and have people in parliament.
This portion is increasing because of birth rate
differences. There is no "invading"; muslims are
born in Israel as citizens.
Once Israel becomes 51% muslim, Islamic law can
control Israel.
This process will snowball. As the remaining Jews
see the demographic changes, they will begin to
leave. (probably for the USA) Of course, that
accelerates the demographic changes far beyond
birth rate differences alone.
BTW, it's pretty strange to call the recipient
of daily rocket attacks an "aggressive destroyer
of good will". Most any country would instantly
consider itself at war if a neighbor did that.
The recent truce in Gaza lasted 15 minutes, ended
by more rockets hitting Israel.
On that you will reap what you sow I am quite sure. I doubt it will ever happen, there's too many tyrants like yourself around.
It all depends what you've done to deserve that. Driving farmers off their land, and families out of their houses should not be tolerated. What choice have you given them? Lay down and die or leave. Someone needs to fight for these people.
When the opponent has 1000 targets to choose from, the right answer is to make sure you've done the minimum, obvious stuff for each, and then focus your resources on gaining intelligence about your opponent. Wasting your resources by hardening one target further lowers security (assuming finite resoruces). This is why I keep saying that the TSA actually hurts us, in the bigger view.
Also, if the objective of terrorism is to create terror (which is debatable IMO), you can win simply by refusing to be afraid. Works for me.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It all depends what you've done to deserve that. Driving farmers off their land, and families out of their houses should not be tolerated.
That isn't killing. The rockets are killing.
In any case, Israel shouldn't have to give up its own land to have a secured boarder region. The people launching rockets should give up land for this purpose. They cause the need for a wide boarder region, and so they should pay the cost. Land is only part of the cost; the Palestinians should also pay for the concrete and steel and labor. (or, better yet, not cause Israel to need such an outrageous thing)
Someone needs to fight for these people.
For people who won't even allow non-muslims to simply exist? No, definitely not.
If you are really as clueless as you act, please take a trip to Saudi Arabia with a bible in your suitcase. That'll make your trip "interesting". Meanwhile, those Jews you hate so much have yet to bulldoze the mosque sitting right on the Temple Mount.
I can only name one single country with a muslim majority that is even remotely tolerable for anybody of any other religeon. (Turkey) All the rest are into brutal human rights abuses; it is quite reasonable to return the favor.
Maybe it's worth killing for. I try very hard not to wish ill will on anyone, but I could see how someone might want to defend their land and home. That is why there is rocket fire. It is Israel's choice to make that stop. Stop illegal border expansion and the rockets stop.
Israel doesn't have any land that wasn't stolen. Israel is being asked to stop expanding it's territory not even to return previously stolen land to its owners. You know that as well as I do.
That is only your opinion. I've enjoyed every visit to Indonesia.