A perspective on the event. Not vouching for its accuracy, just pointing it out.

Dan: I'd have to ask, have the Imams been charged with a crime? I personally believe that a private air carrier should have the right to toss people off the plane for whatever reason they choose. I think common carriage is ass, frankly, and that business owners should be allowed to serve whoever the please, and omit whoever they please.

So... if your complaints are falling on deaf ears, it could be that most people agree with me, at least in this circumstance. If this is going to spawn 'lunch counter' civil rights protests, I think it will have a far, far different result than it did in the civil rights era. People who purposely try to frighten airline passengers should fear the passengers more than the FBI in my opinion.

If it was logical for a second for anyone to conclude that Al Qaeda or anyone who would want to do us harm would want to draw attention to themselves at both the gate and on board the plane, so as to have themselves removed or the plot spoiled thats contradictory and silly. Have a political argument isn't a crime. Being a Muslim and flying on a plane isn't a crime. Being suspicious isn't a crime either.

If it "was" a crime don't you think they would have been arrested for it?

the airline would not allow them to fly. So they are allowed to sue. Is it extortion? Maybe that remains to be seen, unless the airline can prove they still constitute a threat to the airline, passengers, or plane after such time that they were released from the custody of the authorities.

Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service? They can sue all they want. They won't get anywhere with it. As a "service provider" the airline have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish for "any" reason they wish. That could be me or you on the recieving end.

I guess rather than stand up for what he believes, Dan is going to "cut & run".

I guess rather than stand up for what he believes, Dan is going to "cut & run".

Too bad.  He is usually not a bad voice of reason.

It's not that I don't feel like I have anything to offer or contribute, or that there is anyone in particular who feels I don't either, it's mainly that I spend a fair bit of time, in fact probably too much time, reading up on what other people post, legit or not, and trying to explain to myself why they feel the way they do. It's great for learning about the world and cool to at least be able to discuss things with others, just not very fast and easy, I've tried to refrain from the "drive by posting" like "MasonM" here so elegantly displayed. But the fact is I just simply don't have the time between working really hard on two different stories, work, and holiday shopping, as well as my passion for flight sims, and computer games in general. It's been a really unique perspective enhancer and the exposure to information I don't normally get or necessarily seek has proven to be invaluable. As I said before. It's been fun posting but I've got to move on. At least for now. I don't have the time to devote daily or even in the week, to post as often as I'd like or on as much as I'd like. Unfortunately, for the great discussers/debaters at this stage of my life I'm unable/willing to commit the time to be able to bring the argument/discussion into terms I'm comfortable with.

Like all things, participating on-line is something that people really need to pace themselves or they get burned out.

My suggestion would be to just take a few days off and come back.

Dan Greene,

I'm 6'2", 300+ lbs and I've never needed a seatbelt extension. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I appreciate the welcome and encouragement to stay, but I've got a lot on the schedule between now and the new year. My fingers are sore.

"You're articulate and sincere, and I've seen you concede as many points as you've stood behind."

Whip I didn't think you had it in you. One day we could even be friends.

"What it does mean is that you're going to have to develop a pretty thick skin and not take the obvious frustration this is going to cause too personally."

I can do what I want, and hey, if frustration is where you think I'm at, I'm glad you care at least some, but it's more of a I don't have time to "bring it" the way I "want to bring it" when it comes to enlightening/discussing/debating/learning. When I do make the effort, there are plenty of dissenting opinions that mock me for things which I feel I am not oh cheapshots which are pointless because I only care to learn.

"My suggestion would be to just take a few days off and come back."

Might be a few weeks or months, that's probably be what'll happens, but I appreciate the exchange of Ideas thus far, bottom line, for JU to stay fresh and interesting it needs me more then I need it, and thats the same for all of us. The drive by posting, is at best rediclious and can be upsetting but I just need to keep it in perspective. As for some of the people who post here, who like to argue akin to is the earth flat or round, I can do without jumping into those threads as well, all learning experiences.

"I guess rather than stand up for what he believes, Dan is going to "cut & run"."

That's an insulting remark, if I had made it, I'd take it back. As for the actual meaning and point of your usage of cut & run, well, if you slowly read up, you'll see that I had the last post relevant to...

the article title,
the articles main points,
facts as they are in the police report,
presentation of my stated take on this situation;

To summarize these guys were simply flying home from a conference and both were under the eye of suspicion because they are Muslim, and because they also drew attention to themselves. All of the actions taken by the airline up until the point of re-denying them a flight were legit. It isn't discrimination because they were Muslim necessarily, but discrimination because the first day, they were allowed to fly up until found to be suspicious, not found to be in violation of the law but merely suspicious, on the second day after all wrong doing was cleared, they were not upgraded for the misunderstanding, to first class as you would expect a company to attempt to do to try to save a customer, not given even their prior arrangement, but denied a flight for no reason except because the airline didn't want to provide service. Yet that same airline had taken their money the day prior, accepted them, allowed them to board, tolerated them as any other passenger, and they weren't on any no fly list, or anything.

Nobody has disputed either the facts or the reasoning I used to conclude that the airline had made the right decision on the first day and the wrong one on the second day.

Yet I'm the one who's cut and run. I'm insulted, you should be ashamed for making said remark. "Cut and run" is a sound byte created in an election year to curry votes against something i.e. leaving Iraq, it's not a exit strategy, I didn't coin it, nor did I invent it. To describe, currently the only viable option in the essence of a lack of viable exit strategies, a situation created by a leader who thought it would be impossible for us to lose, as my fault, or link my presentation of the facts and statements to that is just flat out silly.

I didn't spill the coffee in Iraq, I'm not cleaning it up. Further, if it was my duty to make coffee I'd be carrying some napkins if I was handling the whole situation with glass hands. Piss poor analogy but it was a piss poor application of cut & run to the argument I've made.

Regarding my choice to not rebutt, a rebuttal to my own post, which I'm still waiting for, and move on to other things, more important then spinning the letters into coherent sentences with you guys and gals, it's my choice, and I'll make it however I please. I didn't start a war, not even of words, of facts maybe, but I see them few and far between my own posts in this thread, although maybe it's just my perspective.

"Dan: I'd have to ask, have the Imams been charged with a crime? I personally believe that a private air carrier should have the right to toss people off the plane for whatever reason they choose. I think common carriage is ass, frankly, and that business owners should be allowed to serve whoever the please, and omit whoever they please."

I agree, if the airline wants to kick you off for security reasons fine, but they should have some cause, which they did in the first day of the situation. Kicking off people because the color of their skin, sexual orientation, or their religion, things which are protected under civil rights laws, that is just ludicrous. If it is not against the law it should be in my opinion. It probably is unlawful to deny someone flight service purely because of their religious observances I'm not sure. If praying is a behavior that is intolerable in public life, then you can expect a revolution far more dangerous to the lives of the citizens of the country then anything terrorists can muster occasionally. I'm talking about another civil war because this nation was founded on the ideals that the government shall not infringe on your religious expression rights. If anything our country has moved to being more and more free for more and more segments of the population as time goes on. Thus far, it's an inalienable right when it comes to being an employee perhaps not yet, as a customer.

I would expect a Muslim boycott of the airline if they choose to handle this type of thing in this way from now on, again that remains to be seen.

All politics and opinion aside, lets get to the heart of this... do you see that fear, which is the weapon the extremists have used against us allows you to think that it's ok to not accept people's religious expressions as normal and safe, the constitution provides no business or government organization with the ability to discriminate against people based on religion.

Do you see that our country, 10 years ago, or even Sept 10, 2001, some Muslims in an airport praying would have been more tolerated, and not caused alarm, yet the danger was just as real if not much more so then it is now?

Do you not see, that these guys were just false alarms, I mean one of them was blind, not acting blind, blind, walking stick sunglasses lack of sight, the whole bit, they all were middle aged/30's-40's, neither your typical terrorist, young dumb and influence able, nor the physical shape you'd expect (obese or slightly so). The pattern of young, fit, fanatically devoted willing to kill all infidels doesn't really fit these guys unless you are willing to stretch it to a certain degree.

"People who purposely try to frighten airline passengers should fear the passengers more than the FBI in my opinion."

You are correct in the post 9/11 world anybody, Muslim or not, can had better think twice about trying anything on an airplane, then think about it again lol because passengers are out to get you if you make them angry or threaten them.

The Imams have said they haven't tried to frighten the passengers, only say their prayers and take a flight. I believe them, if the passengers and flight attendants are already scared to death then they be damned. These guys were in business suits, shirts ties, dressed clean and the thinking that because they had a political discussion/debate on a plane and were middle eastern they're guilty of holding views "of an extremist nature" is just silly. They're Americans just like you and me are they not?

Look I've chosen to live my life free from the fear of these guys, embrace not just Muslims but anybody in our country that's different, it's helped me realize that what things I knew before 9/11 were just as true as they are now. That there are a lot of people who are in this world just like you and me who want the same things, freedom, a good life, a better one for their kids. There are some nuts out there, and certainly bad apples, certainly also differences, but there are many more things that bind us in the similar then things that divide us in the dissimilar.

"I'm 6'2", 300+ lbs and I've never needed a seatbelt extension. Sorry, I don't buy it."

I'm 6'1" my drivers license says 250 but I'm not exactly 250 either, the seats are smaller then I like, sometimes uncomfortable, if you are trying to support the idea that these guys were going to go offensive with the seat belt extenders, what about the fact that one of them was blind and according to pepper spray manufactures, blindness removes 85% of an attackers ability to persecute an attack.

A. Why would they bring the blind guy along if they were planning some devious aggression? What as a diversion? Get real.
B. Why would only one of them asked for the extension?

If you are more beefcake then fatass, or vice versa, then being 250-300 lbs, these seats weren't designed for your comfort in mind. They were designed to fit as many passengers inside the fuselage as possible, get you on and off the plane as quickly as possible, and turn that jet around to board and expedite departure ASAP. In manufacturing we call it OEE, Operational equipment effectiveness. It's an ISO standard, and it can be applied to any business, I'm sure the airlines have their own alphabet soup for it but basically for a company to be world class that machine has to be up and running 90% or better, 24/7 365 days a year for it's 20-30 year life expectancy. Getting you on and off the plane fast, and getting a certain number of passengers on average on each flight is a necessary thing for a company to stay in business. Wanna guess which magnitude the average profit margin is for each flight? It's tiny. Large civilian airliners make either several hundred to about a thousand dollars per destination reached. So if a plane is flying all day long, it's made maybe 4-8 thousand dollars profit for that day if the average passenger count was good. If it was a low passenger count flight day, then it wouldn't have made money.

Bottom line, the chairs are designed for efficiency, getting the most amount of people into the smallest amount of space, and not breaking down and needing a repair. Not comfort.

It just doesn't add up in light of the facts. If you bothered to view the video, you can see 4 of these guys. Judge for yourself whether it would seem extraordinary for them to ask for an extension. I'm no detective and I didn't go to college for this, but I think with the delays and commotion, the fact that the plane never i.e. left the tarmac these guys never buckled in along with a lot of other passengers. If memory serves me from flights, you aren't required to do so until just before the plane begins to move. I'm guessing that since 9/11 and the fact that the airlines have had to "go lean" they wouldn't be serving dinner from Minneapolis to Phoenix because of the length of the flight. (2-3 hours?) So these guys probably ate a meal, maybe a dinner before they departed. I'm sure one of you is going to say, oh look "the apologist" is making excuses, but if you can shoot down the argument I've made in this paragraph with some facts, be my guest. I did see the video, and to me, none of these guys were morbidly obese, but to say that they wouldn't fit the definition of obese, i.e. marginally overweight, well I have no way of proving except educated guesses, but I'd say it would not be excessively unreasonable for one of them to ask for a seatbelt extension and to leave it unbuckled. It's an opinion, and you may disagree.

"Dan: I'd have to ask, have the Imams been charged with a crime?"

To this day I believe the answer is no.

Ok time to get some sleep. Look forward to reading your responses to my "cut and run" .

"Why would they bring the blind guy along if they were planning some devious aggression? What as a diversion?"

No one believes they were planning an attack anymore Dan. More likely they were planning exactly what they did and are doing now. I'd be curious to know, if there ends up being a boycott, what the investment situation of these people might be. As with racially-motivated boycotts, there's a lot of money to be made from a day or two of bad press.

Ask yourself what the public response would have been if the authorities ignored these concerns and there had been an attack.

"Ask yourself what the public response would have been if the authorities ignored these concerns and there had been an attack."

There hasn't been a terrorist plot on any airplanes with any success or credibility lately at all. Which is why the scrutiny and absurdity of the fear is the heart of the issue. Just because awful things occasionally happen to people doesn't mean it's the norm or standard.

"More likely they were planning exactly what they did and are doing now."

What evidence/fact(s) do you have to support this besides an opinion?

I agree, if the airline wants to kick you off for security reasons fine, but they should have some cause, which they did in the first day of the situation.

I notice how you have ignored this post:

the airline would not allow them to fly. So they are allowed to sue. Is it extortion? Maybe that remains to be seen, unless the airline can prove they still constitute a threat to the airline, passengers, or plane after such time that they were released from the custody of the authorities. Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service? They can sue all they want. They won't get anywhere with it. As a "service provider" the airline have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish for "any" reason they wish. That could be me or you on the recieving end.

The Flying Immams!!

"There hasn't been a terrorist plot on any airplanes with any success or credibility lately at all. Which is why the scrutiny and absurdity of the fear is the heart of the issue. Just because awful things occasionally happen to people doesn't mean it's the norm or standard."

Damn, my memory must be failing. I don't remember there ever being anything of much consequence before 9/11, either. Yet, the muckrakers in Congress demanded to know why were weren't foreseeing it and stopping it when there was no reason to believe it was going to happen.

I don't guess you recall that odd time in recent history where half the time they were complaining about 'racial profiling' and long lines at airports, while they were simultaneously demanding to know why more wasn't done about airline security before the attack. I remember it. Think back, you might, too.

"What evidence/fact(s) do you have to support this besides an opinion?"

Their behavior? Granted, they could just be a group of oddballs, but their behavior since hasn't been very oddball. Anyone with half a brain would know better than to do the things they did.

I guess the "oddball" type of behavior isn't the sort of thing you'd expect from a terrorist trying to "blend in with the crowd".

Praying in the terminal
requesting a seatbelt extension
looking suspicious
hold a political discussion in public between themselves

yeah truely oddball

I think it is sad that some of you think it is acceptable to profile people who clearly don't fit the profile, lol just because they are Muslim, but what would anybody but myself expect.

Yea, I take back my statement, but stand behind the mentality. The reason they were caught or would have been caught, was they were screened or would have been screened. Can't sneak a bomb on board if you go through security. Just not happening.

Regarding the likelihood of anything legit happening on a plane, that is credible, and by credible I mean, able to do more then just cause fear, and panicky behavior is very low. The counter-measures are in place, to not only prevent such an event but the mentality of the passengers isn't one of tolerance for any bru-ha-has anymore whatsoever.

I live on the same planet as you do, if you live in the United States, the same country as you. This used to be a country where people had some basic rights, you know, liberty, bill of rights, that sorta thing. Seems with each passing day, things seem to be less and less free in our country for not only those of us who would do us harm but those who look like they would do us harm.

Until you can produce one shred, of evidence, one element of a crime, one thing that doesn't add up, anything that is fact that states, these guys had no evil or ill intent whatsoever. Simply put, they haven't done anything, certainly implied "something" is neither their fault, or their doing. To be granted service one day and refused service the next, without cause, well thats for a court to decide, or maybe we should just abolish the courts and just assume these people are guilty until they can prove their innocence.

Sounds Nazi, Soviet, and pretty damned dangerous thinking, stacked up to the concept of freedom, which our citizens seem to feel is the guiding light of this nation. Those who would trade freedom for security, need only look so far as Iraq to gauge how well that is working out. The most powerful army in the world backed up by all the logistical support, and a financially blank check written by the richest country on the planet towards the cause, over the course of going on fours years, simply cannot provide that basic level of security which we as a free people have earned by the wise choices of our ancestors.

I would say the lesson to be learned is once you start taking away freedoms, tolerance of the lack of existence of those freedoms becomes more and more acceptable, over time society and way of life changes. I'm firmly convinced from the lessons of racial inequality that our country has struggled with since it's inception, that ostracizing Muslims in any way, simply because they are Muslim, that allowing that to be acceptable isn't a choice for the better, either in the present or in the future.

Though you are entitled to your own opinion.

"Actually, both of ya have short memories. It was just this past August (not even four months ago) that the UK arrested 21 individuals engaged in a plot to blow up aircraft leaving the UK on their way to America."

Any of these flying Imams directly associated with the plot?
Any of these flying Imams indirectly associated with the plot?
Any of these flying Imams in any way associated with this plot?

No.
No.
No.

So where's your defense of the airlines behavior for kicking them off even after they had been cleared of any wrongdoing, or any intent to cause havoc? There is none is there?

Do you forget that had there been anything, anything at all, they would have been held, with the patriot act/detainee act, these American citizens could be held for an indefinite period of time as unlawful combatants, with no trial, with no charges ever brought against them, but there was nothing. Is nothing.


Except that they are Muslim.

That's wrong.

So where's your defense of the airlines behavior for kicking them off even after they had been cleared of any wrongdoing, or any intent to cause havoc? There is none is there?

I've told you this before and I'll say it again. Ever hear of the "right" to refuse service? You doubt it's validity? Try walking into a restaurant in America without shoes on your feet.

Weren't you the one complaining about losing rights?