Overzealous AirTran Boots 9 Passengers Off 1002
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.
They got a refund (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, they have now received a refund:
Linky [yahoo.com]
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Refund has nothing to do with it. It was racism and racial profiling that got them kicked off the plane, interviewed by the FBI, their trip delayed, etc. The financial loss of the original plane tickets is nothing compared to the trauma they have had to deal with mentally.
Let's be real honest with each other here. I mean everybody.
1) A white family of nine people get on a plane. They are dressed in contemporary clothing. Three of the young adults make a remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
2) A brown family of nine people get on a plane. They are dressed in traditional clothing of Islamic people. Three of the young adults make a remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
Hell why not:
3) A Chinese family of nine people get on the plane. They are dressed in clothing straight out of 1920's Shanghai. Three of the young adults in thick Chinese accents remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
The reason why other people felt uncomfortable on the plane had everything to do with the appearance of this family. Those preconceptions and stereotypes led them to interpret those remarks differently then they would have with #1 or #3.
It was racism. Period.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Funny)
3) A Chinese family of nine people get on the plane. They are dressed in clothing straight out of 1920's Shanghai. Three of the young adults in thick Chinese accents remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
I'd be afraid they'd stop the plane, run around it, then get back in.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
This event is exactly what you could expect when you go around telling people, "If you see something, say something."
Is this racism? Yes. However, bear in mind that you are asking EVERYONE to go out and look for suspicious activity - even people who are completely unprepared to identify it.
Anyway, the airline has since apologized and offered to fly them back home for free, and frankly I think that the whole thing got blown out of proportion. Hell, even the family admitted that the FBI was very professional - their beef was with the girls that reported them and the stupid airline, which apparently has some really bad decision makers on the ground.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, the airline has since apologized and offered to fly them back home for free, and frankly I think that the whole thing got blown out of proportion.
Though at the same time, if it was in fact blown out of proportion (which I don't quite believe), I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Interesting)
>I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.
They only got the refund after someone in senior management got word that one of the counter clerks had actually refused a request from an FBI agent to issue a new ticket. I guess the potential liability that comes from having faced down the FBI was much greater than the exposure to a civil suit from the passenger....
Re:They got a refund (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds like the airline gave them a refund right away. They would not have gotten an apology or a free return ticket without the publicity, however.
I didn't mean to imply that the media was solely responsible for blowing things out of proportion - the airline had a hand in it by being completely loony. But our "see something, say something" mentality will ensure that this incident gets repeated again... I meant to downplay the uniqueness of the event more than the size of the injustice.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Informative)
On a good note the FBI even tried to get them back on the plane when they found out it was just silliness.
A combination of a few silly passengers, dumb rent a cops, and a REALLY STUPID AIRLINE.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually you would probably find the FBI judgment has over all been really good.
True story. I have a sister that is a total nut case. She sent some really nasty conspiracy theory emails to some high government officials.
She got a visit from DHS and the FBI.
They realized she was a harmless nut case and left her alone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
--Michael Scott
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Funny)
You're picturing a woman, right? Wrong! It's a man! You are so sexist.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Funny)
Let's be real honest with each other here.
Huh, what, why?
I mean everybody.
Including me?
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!
2) A brown family of nine people get on a plane.
No, they get booted from the plane.
3) A Chinese family of nine people get on the plane.
If the Chinese are leaving the country in such numbers, that means that the economy is going to hell in a hand-basket.
You have been warned.
Mormons (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
No, It was profiling. A technique that combines racial, religious, ethnic and political bigotry to increase the sense of security of the voters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your racist.
I think you just equated traditional Islamic clothing with a "big fat kick me" sign on your back.
So the Brady Bunch behaving the exact same way would have been kicked off the plane, interviewed by the FBI, an
Re:They got a refund (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends. Was Peter tossing his football of death? [tv.com]
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Different cultures evidently produce terrorists at different rates. That seems factual. The unresolved question seems to be, to what extent is it reasonable and ethical to subject individuals from problematic cultures to greater scrutiny? Not at all? Is there a certain line that shouldn't be crossed? Is increased scrutiny ok, so long as rights aren't violated?
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the Irish have been terrible terrorists in the UK over the last few decades. Still, the cahnces of a fellow being a murderer just because he's Irish are pretty low, so picking on a chap for that is a little harsh.
Re:They got a refund (Score:4, Interesting)
You are conflating prejudice based on race with prejudice based on culture. They're not the same thing, although there's a large amount of overlap. I think prejudice based on culture is slightly more reasonable, although still prone to much error. After all, culture affects behavior much more than race does.
Different cultures evidently produce terrorists at different rates. That seems factual. The unresolved question seems to be, to what extent is it reasonable and ethical to subject individuals from problematic cultures to greater scrutiny? Not at all? Is there a certain line that shouldn't be crossed? Is increased scrutiny ok, so long as rights aren't violated?
Fuck, I wish I hadn't already contributed to this article or I'd mod you up. You hit the nail on the head. For the record, it's reasonable and logical to profile based on culture. Our society takes it to the extreme (and beyond) and that is a definite problem. But the underlying idea(l) behind it is sound and perfectly reasonable.
Don't believe me? Nearly everyone does it every day. Walk down the street in a neighborhood you aren't familiar with or a town/city you aren't familiar with. You will automatically avoid people you are unfamiliar with. You will go to greater lengths to avoid people of a particular type of culture that you know to be problematic - take for example the gang culture. You might casually avoid someone dressed as a redneck - they are prone to problems, but it's minor and usually avoidable or resolvable. You will go to greater lengths to avoid someone dressed in "gang" culture. They are prone to greater problems/more violence and you are less likely to be able to resolve any conflict that arises.
The same goes for problem cultures from other countries. But - as I said, we go too far a lot of times in the US. You don't ban every redneck who wants to enter a business, just like you don't ban every gang banger who want to enter a business, nor should you overly scrutinize every person from a particular problem culture either. A reasonable level of prudence is required, something the greater population of the US seems to lack in many cases.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
The crucial difference is between changing your own behaviour, and forcing someone else to change theirs. Stereotyping others in order to change your behaviour is fine. If those passengers had chosen to get off the planes themselves because they feared the Muslims were terrorists, then I doubt anyone would be criticising them. But no, because they expect other people to have their lives disrupted based on their prejudices, that's a very different thing, and it's fair game to criticise them.
This also isn't anything to do with any supposed race vs. culture distinction - it's still reasonable to stereotype in the way you describe based on race (or sex, come to that), but again crosses the line when you force others to do so.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck, I wish I hadn't already contributed to this article or I'd mod you up. You hit the nail on the head. For the record, it's reasonable and logical to profile based on culture. Our society takes it to the extreme (and beyond) and that is a definite problem. But the underlying idea(l) behind it is sound and perfectly reasonable.
The trouble here is that these people were only dressed up like Muslims. As an overall "culture", they are perfectly reasonable, calm, rational people, that make up 20% of the global population. I've encountered thousands and never encountered an elevated level of problems or violence levels.
Bottom line, fearing "Muslim's" is irrational. Muslim's aren't a "problem culture". Your stereotype is wrong or at least so overly-broad as to be meaningless.
And THAT is the problem here. Your applying your stereotype too broadly because you don't know how to identify the actual 'problem culture'.
Suppose a few Chinese men came to the US and were violently accosted by neonazi skinheads... and then returned to China and told their tale, and from then on, every white person who goes to china gets treated with "extra prudence" because they've identified "white people" as a "problem culture".
Would that be warranted? Of course not!
What's the difference?
Sure, to you and I a Nazi Skinhead might stick out in a crowd... but perhaps to someone from another culture, we're all just homogeneous white guys. Or what if the skin heads were KKK instead -- and truly inconspicuous amongst us? Would that make it ok for every non-white to treat all whites as as problem culture, due to KKK violence?
A reasonable level of prudence is required
No a reasonable sense of perspective is required. The odds that the guy next to you adorned with nazi symbols and a shaved head is a nazi skinhead and is likely to be belligerent and racist and is from a 'problem culture' is reasonably high, and you are justified in being extra prudent. The odds that the person dressed in traditional muslim attire next to you is affiliated with terrorism are a million to one - the odds that the normal looking white guy on your other side is going to mug you are probably significantly higher.
Yet which one are you eying suspiciously?
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
the odds that the normal looking white guy on your other side is going to mug you are probably significantly higher
I'm sorry, but you just derailed your entire argument. In an effort to prove that the average person lacks sufficient knowledge to truly be prudent, you created a "probable" statistic based on what - the desire that reality be the opposite of what someone "less intelligent/knowledgeable" than you would reason it to be?
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Interesting)
Anecdote, arising from said "kick me" signs:
A friend was on tour with Godspeed! You Black Emperor. They were eating at an IHOP, somewhere in the midwest. Now, Godspeed is kind of an odd band. I don't know if they still do, but they used to squat in an abandoned warehouse up in Quebec. They're peacefully anti-establishment. They dress kind of odd (compared to your typical small-town midwestern family).
Twenty minutes or so after they sat down to their pancakes and eggs, four county sheriffs show up at the restaurant. They sit down and begin questioning the band about terrorism, if they were terrorists, what they were planning on blowing up / shooting up, et cetera.
In other words, some small-town hick decided to call the police on a potential terror threat because this band looked a little different than they did.
Also:
Even if they're hardline Catholic? Even if they're hard-line southern baptist? There were several families in the PCA (presbyterian church of america) church I group up in who not only believed makeup and jewelry was evil, but also contraceptives. Each family in that (admittedly, small) portion of the congregation had about six or seven kids. Are these families going to raise a few eyebrows? Sure. Should these families be suspected of being terrorists? Hell no. Sure they're weird, sure they're not the norm.
But neither was the (rather large) family of Hasidic Jews that were aboard my flight from Atlanta to NYC the other day. They dressed different. They had a large family. If their kids were asking which section of the plane was safest, and if they were safe sitting next to the engine, would that have aroused suspicion? I'm guessing not.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you don't know what rational means. Rational implies a logical reasoned cause. The probability of any randomly selected Muslim being desperate to blow up a plane full of people is trivially similar to the probability of any randomly selected Hasidic Jew/Quaker/Pastafarian/Botanist/whatever being desperate to blow up a plane full of people.
The association of Muslims and acts of terrorism is a decidedly fear driven, emotional, and IRRATIONAL reaction based on perceived portrayals in media (e.g. news, fictional shows, blah blah blah). That Jack Bauer fought some Muslims who wanted Death to America last season (a couple seasons ago?) is not the basis for anything rational. Rational bias is backed up by objective evidence and reasoning, not cause FOXNEWS tells you to be scared.
The "pattern recognition" you refer to (I'm figuring you probably mean some sort of associative function of the human brain), is a this-implies-that behaviour of the mind. These associations aren't necessarily rational, only if they are formed based on rational reasoning. Simply believing that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists does not imply rationality.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They got a refund (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! WASPs prefer Ryder trucks full of ammonium nitrate.
Yes they do. I often get a chill when I see a hick driving a moving van.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Interesting)
Statistically a larger proportion of crime is committed by people with coloured skin, should we treat all such people therefore as criminals?
Its the same damn thing.
(and BTW, my answer to the above is 'of course not you idiots' as such statistics mean nothing in relation to intent to commit any crime).
There is NO excuse for the treatment of these people, what started out as a mistake on the part of airline security was then made many times worse as those same idiots dug in their heals rather than just admit they were wrong.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time a white anglo saxon christian tried to commandeer and/or blow up an airplane in America?
Great point. Those guys prefer to blow up government buildings [wikipedia.org].
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
It happens about as frequently as Muslim's trying to blow up our airplanes.
Re:They got a refund (Score:4, Insightful)
You say that even now as white people in Israel slaughter innocent Palestinian people, and white people from the the U.S. and its allies slaughter innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are you trying to tell me that you haven't seen people celebrating the death and destruction in the middle east that is being done in retribution for what a few people did on 9/11? We make it sound very official, and people in suits pretend like they are making real tough decisions. At the end of the day, we killed more of them than they killed of us. We are the ones who are whacked out, and very few of us even realize it.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Flawed? Really?
So we are going to base "proper police work" on statistics alone? Profiling is ethically and morally correct by law enforcement and government? Since it is "good enough for government" that means that corporations can do the same?
Let's take your apparent argument a little further. Based on statistics a Muslim person in traditional garb can be stopped and detained repeatedly throughout his life. We can tell them it's only statistics and "proper police work". After the 10th time and they get understandably upset and depressed we can console them with the statistics:
"Look Abu, it's not personal. We know you are probably a good person. A patriotic American to be sure. You paid your taxes the last 10 years. However, as you can see from all these charts, graphs, and police reports, people that look like you are the most common perpetrators of these sets of crimes. By cooperating with us and being a good sport you are being a good patriotic American and a service to your country. Don't you feel better now?"
Or how about a young black man named Jamal:
"Look Jamal, it's not personal. We know you are probably a good person. A patriotic American to be sure. You paid your taxes the last 10 years. However, as you can see from all these charts, graphs, and police reports, people that look like you are the most common perpetrators of these sets of crimes. Statistically, we find more crack rocks on young black men in urban areas than any other. By cooperating with us and being a good sport you are being a good patriotic American and a service to your country. Don't you feel better now?"
I am just curious to by the way. You seem to be well versed in the statistics. What are the statistics about Muslim families in traditional garb traveling with women and children blowing up plains, trains, and automobiles? That's right I forgot. It was take your child to work day when all those men crashed the planes on 9/11.
Racism, racial profiling, statistics.... blah blah blah. It's all basing your judgments on somebody based on their outward appearances. That might be fine for your own personal behavior when you keep it to yourself. Affecting someone else life with those same judgments is where you go to far and you hurt other people.
Police, authorities, companies, governments, basically SOCIETY in general should not be allowed to detrimentally affect somebody else based on their outward appearance. The only thing you have done is perpetuate the belief that there are times that is OK to do this. I'm sorry, but it is not.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when the Catholics and Protestants were shooting and bombing each other, and bombing London, we should be suspicious of all Catholics and Protestants?
What a Fucking Moron.
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when has families of Arab people been hijacking planes?
Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Insightful)
I think not. From TFA's, it appears that the FBI agents did everything right and didn't push ANYBODY around. They don't have legal authority to tell the airlines what to do. They seemed perfectly all right with the airline making an ass out of themselves. When you have that much power and authority, and you're in the spot light, that's exactly what you do. Put on your dark glasses and play it cool.
US born (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US born (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
That they are a part of US culture cuts away a certain amount of confusion. Where you grow up does tend to affect your mannerisms, cultural queues and understanding, etc. These folks were a part of the very culture that misunderstood them which highlights that there was no such cultural confusion involved (in so far as possible with a population of very diverse subcultures).
It doesn't OK treating citizens from other countries like crap. But it does eliminate one excuse for treating these people this way.
Let's hear what they said first (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Airtran Blows (Score:5, Funny)
It would have been worse if you were booked in the passenger cabin. Luggage usually makes it it's correct destination.
Company name check... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Company name check... (Score:5, Funny)
I flew AirTrans once. The stewardesses didn't half have deep voices.
Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Muslim-looking-people are the new "black people" when it comes to profiling. I know what it feels like, being that I'm half black and half white. It's easy for people to shrug it off when it has never happened to them. Dirty looks, being spat on, racial slurs, etc. Fortunatly my experiences turned me into the strong person that I am today.
Hopefully those of you who are unempathetic will never have the shoe on the other foot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know what it feels like, being that I'm half black and half white. It's easy for people to shrug it off when it has never happened to them. Dirty looks, being spat on, racial slurs, etc. Fortunatly my experiences turned me into the strong person that I am today.
President-Elect Obama? Is that you?
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
I donno man, I'm an atheist and had a little old grandma spit on me, too. People can be ignorant savages regardless of skin tone. If you're different than they are with something they identify strongly with, they'll turn on you no matter what.
Bunch of savages in this town.
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Genius! (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Informative)
I've not read a more ignorant, mis-informed, and downright stupid account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, than yours.
It did not end because the free market got tired of losing money. It ended because the Federal Government came in (in the form of the Supreme Court) and smacked them upside the head. Said:"Idiots, we already told you to stop that, do it. Now!"
There had been two previous cases where someone did the exact same thing as Rosa Parks and the legal decision had been in their favor.
What the 'free' market did was attempt to use the civic governments to crack down on the boycott. They tried to force insurance companys to drop the policies of the folk carpooling. They attempted to fine the taxi drivers who were charging fares the same amount as the normal bus fare. They then firebombed two people's houses (including MLK's) and four black churches. They physically attacked the boycotters.
Not ONCE did they say "Oh dear, we are losing money, we should stop this crazy thing and act like human beings"
Re:Discrimination (Score:4, Informative)
According to Wikipedia "Black taxi drivers charged ten cents per ride, a fare equal to the cost to ride the bus, in support of the boycott. When word of this reached city officials on December 8, 1955, the order went out to fine any cab driver who charged a rider less than 45 cents."
So the market tried to solve the problem, but they were over-regulated!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws against discrimination are not unwarranted government intervention or bullshit laws.
What you are saying is that if a corner sandwich shop put a sign up that said, "No Niggers Allowed" that it would be free market that would punish them. That is offensive and incorrect. We need laws and government enforcement to stop exactly that sort of behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
If anybody on a plane makes a claim that a group of people are acting auspicious then they have very little choice.
Anybody? Really? So there's no line to be drawn, can't be too safe, etc.? How about we have some First Amendment repercussions for the complainers? Certainly yelling "terrorist!" in a crowded airplane could be against the law just like "fire" in a crowded theater is.
The complainers should be punished, and this is where the airline got it wrong: the Muslim Nine should have been let back on and the complainers gotten kicked off the plane and should have lost their fares.
And you thought.... (Score:5, Insightful)
..that the "real terrorists" didn't succeed in their plots to "terrorize" Americans.
The idiot who reported them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The idiot who reported them (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone is talking about a "bomb" or what have you, they should be reported. Better safe and late then dead and never arriving.
This group never said anything about a bomb. A professional terrorist wouldn't wander down the isle speculating about the best place to put one, either. What does it say about airport security that people who have been through a thorough screening can still arouse suspicion with a casual comment? No faith in Homeland Security or the billions we're spending on airport security?
I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance and stupidity this country displays toward security. It's gutless and unreasoned. There are something like 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, around 22% of the total population of the planet! We have problems with a few thousand of them. How long are we going to use 9-11 to justify continued fear and ignorance?
Pathetic.
Everyone should know (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Everyone should know (Score:5, Informative)
That's correct. In fact, it's important to remember the cardinal rule of the airline business: The customer is always wrong.
I just dread the day... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What level were the decisions made? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:What level were the decisions made? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not they are a race or faith or religion is debatable and semantics, and inconsequential to my point.
And you're saying that the overall thoughts of the Muslim community in the Middle East should apply to these AMERICANS who happen to be related to them in blood only?
Are you blaming African Americans for the various genocides going on in Africa now? They are completely removed, as are the Muslims regarding your thesis.
What CAN you talk about at the airport? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Similar story... (Score:5, Interesting)
Boiled down to pilot discretion, that is all (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether allowing pilots that degree of individual unrestricted discretion is a wise idea or not should probably be debated.
Here's the bottom line: (Score:5, Insightful)
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!!
I'm jealous of you white guys with anglo names. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The problem of Islam (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] or Jim Jones [wikipedia.org], but how many Islamists are ready to make a critical comment about Mohammed Atta? [wikipedia.org]
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....
Re:The problem of Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
cough cough ... Thirty Years' War... cough cough (and since it was the continuation of a conflict that started in 1546, its more like the 102 years war...but whatever).
The problem is not Islam, the problem is organized religion that encourages fundamentalist teachings and the abandonment of reason. Islam is not really more vulnerable to this than any other religion, it just seems that way because the fundamentalists' cause is buoyed by moderates who resent political persecution of 'the Islamic world' by 'the West'.
A perfect current events example of this is happening right now in Gaza. Before the 'truce' expired Hamas was largely considered a failed govt. by Gazans. A average terrorist group but a failure at running a state. If a new (and fair!) election had been held before the truce expired, Fatah would probably have won. But now, many Palestinians who despise hamas will still support them, because they hate the israelis far more and want to deny them a perceived victory.
I am not talking about morality or what the israelis should be doing, and I don't want this example to become fuel for a flamewar.
I'm just trying to point out a universal human characteristic: nothing brings disparate people together like a common enemy.
The perceived strength of fundamentalist muslims is not a religious phenomenon, it is a political one. This is a distinction that many people miss, IME.
Re:Tip to arabs: don't wear towel on head in airpo (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]) 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 [wikipedia.org]; 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"...
Re:Tip to arabs: don't wear towel on head in airpo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tip to arabs: don't wear towel on head in airpo (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tip to arabs: don't wear towel on head in airpo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tip to arabs: don't wear towel on head in airpo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How so? Most registered gun carriers I know completely ignore those signs that say 'no guns'. These are law-abiding citizens.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Mulsim... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a US born family.
US Born Muslims have been terrorists less frequently than Michigan rednecks. They're a middle class immigrant group very similar to Indians and Koreans. The only thing they're fanatical about is sending Ali Jr. to an Ivy and getting a Benz.
And this is also, coincidentally, the solution to terrorism. If we lifted the sanctions on Palestine and ended the prison-like occupation of the state, it would take 15 years tops for them to start caring more about cars and TVs than God and Jews. Has anyone heard from the IRA since the Irish GDP shot up?
Terrorism is for bored poor third worlders. Fix the third world and we fix terrorism.
Or we could just keep killing people and maybe they'll get less desperate and angry.
Re:Mulsim... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a flip side to this: it goes both ways. As the material aspirations in the US start to dry up, now that this insane credit and housing bubble has popped and the manufacturing base is overseas, people will starting "clinging to God and guns" more in the US, whatever their religion is.
Re:Mulsim... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mulsim... (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, the Irish problem largely went away with 9/11. Suddenly a lot of "well meaning" (?) Irish Americans sympathetic to terrorism discovered that ... um ... terrorism is bad, and funding ceased.
I'm assuming that the specific Irish problem you refer to is the IRA (and others) campaign to reunite Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland. We do have other issues ...
9/11 had nothing to do with the IRA's cessation of hostilities: they realised a long time ago that violence wasn't going to achieve their objectives and decided to take the democratic route. I am in no way a fan of the IRA or Sinn Fein (their political wing), but I give them credit for realising that democracy and negotiation was the way to go.
UK border installations (watch towers, armoured checkpoints on roads) were being dismantled in the early 1990s. I remember crossing the border in 1987 or thereabouts and seeing bunkers and machine gun posts. 5 years later, no installations at all.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open your mouth about security in an airport (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:"bomb" (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cnn.com]
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?
Re:The title is overzealous (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The title is overzealous (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:The title is overzealous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The title is overzealous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re:I fail to see the issue here... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:I fail to see the issue here... (Score:4, Informative)
"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 [islamistwatch.org]:
"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.
Re:Sorry, no sympathy here. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.