And I repeat my point from that thread that Malkin's manifesto makes things worse from a purely strategic point of view.
I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities... I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools...I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces...
We should be expecting a stirring indictment of American evangelical Christians any day now, then. Keep up the fight for freedom, Michelle!
2 - That's the Jim Henley strategic position, where the domestic anti-terrorism goal (or at least a large part of it) is to get the mass of moderate Muslims who might come across something suspicious to feel comfortable mentioning it to someone, rather than take the default position of all Americans and considering doing something about it later rather than deal with a bureaucrat now.
Shari'a law in my taxi cab. This just pisses me off. Malkin has no clue, what she's talking about, ever. Does she freak out over Jewish delis, or just anything Muslim? I demand my bacon.
And this bullshit John Doe law doesn't actually protect brave little toaster informants. All it does is make them feel better about freaking over flying imams. Informants are already well protected.
Fucking idiots.
4 - also the Daniel Davies strategic position: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_davies/2007/01/marketing_and_spin_you_say_tha.html
It seems like everywhere other than the US, a business/finance degree enables you to put forward your opinions as if they were a cool blast of refreshing logic. Here it seems as if the business/finance degree damages your psyche until you feel highly uncomfortable trying to express or act on any opinions that Ayn Rand would have disagreed with. Ah well.
Dear Brown-skinned person with curly hair:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Sincerely, MM.
Dear god, that video is the most buttclenchingly embarrassing thing I've seen in a long time.
The awesome thing is that next time some unbidden memory of my own asinine behavior drifts through my head, I can wipe it out by thinking, "I Am John Doe."
Shari'a law in my taxi cab.
Heh heh.
B, after 8 I gave in and clicked. You weren't kidding-- it really is anus-tightening in its lameness.
Michelle Malkin: the anti-popper.
Shari'a law in my taxi cab.
Michelle will only ride in your cab if she gets to drive. Too bad, Saudi cab driver, you just lost a fare!!1!
I wonder if taxicab drivers don't enforce Shari'a law enough. I have often been making out in a cab with a Muslim driver thinking, "God, he hates me right now." From what I understand, some people even manage to have sex in cabs. All I can think about that is that it's fundamentally disrespectful when you know you're paying some worker to endure your extreme personal freedom and he can't object without losing his wages.
I have often been making out in a cab
The picture of decadence.
I have often been making out in a cab with a Muslim driver
When the modifier dangles, everyone wins.
I'm John Doe and you America-hating peaceniks are BUS-TED!
I'm John Doe and I'm secretly an Islamist! OH NOES THE PLAN HAS BEEN FOILED
You guys know what the sharia in the taxicab thing is, though, right? A number of Minneapolis (I think) airport taxi drivers objected to carrying alcohol in their cabs and tried to get a sort of carveout in law for them. They were foiled. In all of the screaming-fits from the Right, I never really figured out whether the drivers were objecting to open bottles of alcohol (completely understandable) or discretely stashed away Duty-Free bottles (unenforcible!). Anyway, this has, to some, become another important border skirmish in the clash of civilisations.
Hm. This sounds like one of those right-wing "You don't get to limit my rights with your religion!" things that, for some reason, doesn't apply to, like, people having the right to fill prescriptions. Don't they realize it's much easier to get another cab than it is to move to another pharmacist?
Dear god, that video is the most buttclenchingly embarrassing thing I've seen in a long time.
Indeed. It's an odd feeling to find oneself cringing in embarrassment on behalf of someone who knows no shame.
Yeah, it's in Minneapolis, and they were objecting to the transport of any alcohol, even in bottles stashed in the trunk. It went nowhere.
they were objecting to the transport of any alcohol, even in bottles stashed in the trunk
My muslim brothers: not PR geniuses.
20: There's quite a bit of backstory to the Mpls cab driver thing. About a year and a half ago, there was a bit of a dustup over a report that a Muslim driver had summarily ejected two men who were making out in his cab, even though no one had heard of any straight (or lesbian) couples being similarly inconvenienced. Then, last fall I think, there began to be reports that some of the drivers at the airport were rejecting fares who had alcohol with them. (Virtually all of the drivers were Somali, and hence, Muslim). Then it came out that a local Islamic body apparently had issued a fatwa on the issue, which did in fact enjoin Muslims from abetting the transportation of vinous, spiritous and malt liquors. However, it has also be alleged that the majority of Somali drivers, who are somewhat more liberal in their interpretation of the Law than the imams, would prefer it if the Airport Commission came down firmly on the pro-liquor side, since it's all such a hassle. The most recent story about all this is that local Somalis who work as cashiers, esp. at Target, refuse to ring up pig food, which Target has, for the most part, accomodated. Needless to say, this has the God, Guns and Guts crowd in a lather, but it's all something of a tempest in a teacup, since nobody seems to have any hard numbers about to what extent this is actually affecting local economic life.
Okay, so the "I'm John Doe" thing is kind of silly. But the "Bikinis Not Bhurkhas" messenger bag is a sure hit.
Cool of Target to behave that way, but I think I'm fine with the company firing the fuck out of those cashiers.
Yeah, absolutely they should be fired. You take the job, you do the job; that goes for muslim cashiers and christian pharmacists. I would be perfectly happy to have those people fight to the death if I could figure out a way to keep everyone else out of it.
Well, in re: Target, there's a pretty significant Somali component to their workforce and customer base. And the Somalis have evinced a pretty strong degree of solidarity about stuff like this in the past (coming out against a new liquor license being issued in what is now a heavily Somali neighborhood for instance, and packing the City Council chambers). So I don't think it's just Target's goodwill and staunch support of religious freedom that is helping them evolve their policy.
The thing is, there's a pretty solid consensus among the non-knuckle-dragging crowd around here that the Somalis have been model immigrants, and that the metro-wide acceptance of their presence is something to feel a degree of civic pride over. So there's less incentive to make a fuss about it than in say, Lewiston, ME, where things have not gone so well.
One of the weirdest things about travelling during the last 6 or 7 years, for me, is that I go to other big cities and can't quite put my finger on what seems so odd, and then I realize: No Africans! (It's not just Somalis, see, we've got Ethiopians and Eritreans and Oromo and Sudanese people too.) Hurray for multicultural, multiracial Minneapolis!
The cashier articles were weird, though; apparently they just ask the customer to scan the product, maybe adding an extra ten seconds. About 1/100th the amount of hassle as a price check. And about one millionth the hassle of a pharmacist's conscience law.
If Target wanted to fire them, that'd be fine, too, though I think it's better than they accomodate them if they can. But this is a mouse-sized tempest in a mouse-sized teapot.
And if the cashier had been some elderly Jewish guy who asked his customers to scan their own pork, nary a peep would be heard from the crowd clutching the pearls over creeping incrementalism. ("Isn't it great that he's so devout, sweetie?")
We shouldn't let our feelings about Ogged cause us to sympathize with Malkin's position. All Muslims, guilty or innocent, would be harmed by Malkin's proposals -- not just the Oggeds of the world. The reasonable solution is simply to let the normal processes of law to proceed in Ogged's case and like cases, without taking steps against a lot of harmless, patriotic American Muslims who have done nothing wrong.
Cala, you accomodationist.
I think that it's at least controversial to claim that Muslims are required to avoid transporting alcohol. A little googling found this but I know I've read (though conveniently cannot find) a more thoroughly reasoned argument for this.
As far as I can tell, a high proportion of the airport security people are Somalis.
Minnesota's devotion to alcohol is not to be trifled with, however.
Let's take a systems-level view. What, overall, will happen if this is done? Why, some poor, brown people will lose their jobs. We can predict this with a degree of certainty. Given the other opinions of Madame Malkin, this appears to be no accident.
Dan Dsquared often says that if you want to get on in business, consider what will happen physically if such-and-such a course is followed.
But don't y'all see? This is exactly the same process that other immigrant groups have gone through, from the Irish (papes!) to the Italians (also papes!) to the Eastern Europeans (not papes, but swarthy and with a slave-like mentality!) to the Jews (Jews!). Trust me, 30 years from now, the Somali community in the US will be as assimilated as anybody. (I could write a book on the exceedingly loose interpretations of what modest Muslim attire consists of among young Somali women around here.)
All of this nonsense -- "They're taking our jobs!"; "They hang out all day on the street corner!"; "Look how they treat their women!"; "They'll never fully assimilate because they all want to make money here and go back to their homeland where they can indulge in their deviant practices!" -- is the same bullshit that the already-assimilated always say about those fresh off the boat, and it never pans out. I dunno about youse guys, but I'd rather be able to say "When the new folx came here this time, they got a fairer shake than my great-grandparents did, and I did everything I could to make them feel welcome." If that means some inconvenience or a few missed cues, how am I really harmed?
Minnesota's devotion to alcohol is not to be trifled with, however.
In addition to Andrew Volstead himself being from Minnesota, it was one of several states whose legislators tried to pass prohibiton laws 70 years prior to the nationwide ban.
33: I don't know what the requirement for Muslims and transporting alcohol is. I could not care less. If their cab company wants to fire them, cool. If they don't, and want to be known as the cab company that's not useful or reliable, that's cool, too. If conservatives believe that the magic hand of market forces can cure cancer, they can surely believe that a cab company that won't do pickups at bars is not long for the world outside of Utah.
Volstead only won one more election after that, before prohibition had really taken effect. The next election he was out forever, even though he lived another 20-odd years.
Sorry, Cala, the second paragraph of 33 wasn't meant to expand on the first paragraph; I just wanted to call you an accomodationist, because it's a funny word.
The stuff about actual requirements frustrates me because so many of the wedge issues--alcohol transport, covering, and so on-- are presented as being clear-cut within the umma, which isn't true. But through the controversy, they become part of the identity-politics bundle.
The present state of Prohibition in Minnesota is that you cannot by beer stronger than 3.2% on Sunday.
The present state of Prohibition in Minnesota is that you cannot by beer stronger than 3.2% on Sunday.
I take it you roll your own, Emerson?
41: Gotcha. I think you're right about the identity-politics bundle, and it shows up all over the place. (It's not like the Catholic Church mandates heroic measures, but that didn't stop the Schiavo bandwagon.)
44: right, see also Glenn Reynolds, headscarves in France, and Berube on Chappaquidick.
42: However, the Blue Laws here have lightened up considerably over the past couple of years. Bars and liquor stores can be open later, it's much easier (at least in Mpls) to get a strong-beer-and-wine license for a restaurant, and there are a lot more outdoor-event alcohol permits around than there used to be. Also: Fireworks! (Not the really good kinds yet, alas.)
For some reason, placed like Ireland, Scandinavia, and Minnesota where people really know how to drink also have a high proportion of teetotallers and prohibitionists. It's really one of those paradoxes that scientists haven't been able to figure out. But when the Somalis decided to target alcoholics, they made a mistake they'll bitterly regret.
Next on our agenda: Hmong interpretations of the Second Amendmant.
Prohibiton is a good elementary-particle name -- if you could make a focused Prohibiton-beam weapon you could control the world.
Each atom of Unobtainium contains 45 prohibitons and 55 annihilatons.
Hurray for multicultural, multiracial Minneapolis!
Hear, hear!
Somali chicks are hot.
That wasn't exactly what I was going for, Chopper.
39: And everyone gets a free pass for DWI while the numbers sort themselves. That will teach 'em.
51 neatly summarizes the real difference between theory and practice.
51: That's what America is all about, baby.
People should come to America, work hard to build a better life, feed me their special delicacies, and create opportunities for me to lech on their daughters.
I'm with you as far as the delicacies. Not so much the indelicacies.
My point was just that it's amusing to see how far one can go within the letter of the law (hijab, long sleeves, long skirt) and still be wearing form-fitting, Chopper-distracting outfits.
Also, if these Muslims are so patriarchal, why are they sending most of their daughters to college?
They're sneaky. Get their educated daughters into positions of power, and then have them impose shari'a taxicabs on the nation.
everywhere that it says, "Muslim", replace that with "Jew"
And it would totally make sense to do that, too, if a bunch of rabbis deliberately tried to freak out a planeload of passengers and then sue them for reporting their suspicious behavior. Otherwise, it's completely ridiculous.
Isn't the 'deliberately' what's under debate? Even if it is deliberate, it's probably very easy to argue that 'deliberate' means 'allow other people's prejudices to run away with them', as nothing the imams did was illegal or even indictable.
Mmm. Everything I've seen about 'deliberate provocation' seems to center on going to the bathroom, and asking for a seatbelt extension. No one's taking over a plane with a seatbelt extension.
Seatbelt extensions make the world's finest sexual restraint. Steal one.
LB, were you at the Met this afternoon?
Yes, with my mother and kids. You saw us?
Totally! Those Muslim deliberate provocations must cease!
Oh, wait.
64.--Yes, coming out of the Tut exhibit. I ran after you crying, "Liz, Liz" for a little while before I decided that if it was really you and if that older woman was your mom, you might not enjoy explaining how you knew me. Cute kids!
We could also try switching "Muslims" with "Jews" here, although that wouldn't make much sense, either.
It's only stalking if you wear a raincoat.
66: I actually heard you, come to think, but with a name like Liz in a crowded place, I don't even look around unless I'm expecting to run into people. Drat -- I'll have to work on that policy. Yep, that was Grandma Breath and the little ones.
with a name like Liz in a crowded place, I don't even look around unless I'm expecting to run into people
This is odd.
it would totally make sense to do that, too, if a bunch of rabbis
No, it would still totally make no sense, GB, because taking the JD manifest seriously would still be completely at odds with its purported goal.
A peacoat is but a short step from hiding in a dumpster outside the window, counting the number of times you see your quarry walking around their room.
It's a gateway garment.
I thought about shouting "LizardBreath" but decided firmly against it.
Another gateway garment.
JM, often you can get to the mother through her kids.
Messing with LB's children seems like a good way to get eviscerated, but thanks for the general suggestion.
Perhaps you can get her declared an unfit mother. Then she will only have you.
Jeez, JM, I'm not the stalker around here. Way to shift the blame.
No Emerson, you are scaring her -- you are forcing her to stare into the abyss of her stalker-nature.
John, when you wind up in the news as having been murdered by being dipped alive in a vat of fondant à la Goldfinger, don't say we didn't warn you.
Emerson is just envious of our having seen the pretty freaking awesome "Venice and the Islamic World" exhibit.
Isn't that on tour from the Lake Woebegone Museum of Arts and Culture?
"This symposium is made possible by The Hagop Kevorkian Fund."
The what?
Oh!
I love the painting of St Mark baptizing Anianus, whom wikipedia informs me was a cobbler. Sadly, there is nothing on Conservapedia for Anianus, so I don't know how fair and balanced that information is.
The organization headquartered in the Hagop Kevorkian Building.
I was thinking it was the name of his suicide machine.
I think it's a moderately common Armenian surname.
In 1990 it was the 82983rd most common surname in the U.S.
Mm. I haven't read the comments closely because, well, A) it's something by Michelle Malkin and B) I've been drinking all evening. But I think Pat Benetar (blessed be her name) summed this up nicely:
Maybe it's a sign of weakness, when I don't know what to say
Maybe I just wouldn't know what to do with my strength anyway
Have we become a habit, do we distort the facts
Now there's no looking forward, now there's no turning back, when you say
We belong to the light, we belong to the thunder
We belong to the sound of the words we've both fallen under ...
Dear, Michelle. Bite me.
Come on people, there's a source for your Hagop Kevorkian needs.
My brother and I are going to NY soon, and I must visit the met. Is there a particular area towards which I should direct my attention? I myself am immune to western art and prefer old pretty things, but my brother likes pictures drawn by dead people.
Um. If you're not impressed by the Rembrants, you might enjoy the Assyrian or Greek sculptures? There are many precious little Ming vases and Tang horses?
59: The reason that its ridiculous to speculate about rabbis getting kicked off a plane is that, when something similar actually happens the conservatives don't start calling for blood vengeance against the offending Jew the very next day.
97: Wandering aimlessly is really your best bet. Second best is identifying some one or two objects you know are there as a goal -- there will be plenty of stuff to look at on the route to your object. And if you find yourself in an area you find dull, keep walking -- there's something interesting around the corner two rooms away.
(We were visting the room with the Van Gogh's, mostly. Sally likes them.)
Wandering aimlessly is really your best bet.
I think he/she had a specific question and wasn't just asking for a philosophy of life, LB.
Given my philosphy of life, I'm not your best bet for specific answers.
Hey, you want to see some really first-rate reality-denial on display? Check this Dean Esmay post (short version: you aren't a liberal if you don't support Bush's Iraq policy), but especially the comment thread that follows. That is some kind of impressive.
Maybe this is inappropriate, and I have a lot of respect for minneapolitan's pragmatic approach, but fuck a bunch of religious objectors. I don't care what someone's religion is. Fuck a bunch of Christian pharmacists, fuck a bunch of Islamic cashiers. This is America, by gum, and I'm gonna get my drink on and anybody who thinks otherwise has another thing comin'.
This sentiment brought to you by a fairly debauched weekend.
While I'm at it, though, fuck a bunch of Michelle Malkin fanboys, as well as Malkin herself, for their selective objections. When those cats are lined up outside a Southern Baptist church demanding free booze for all I'll give 'em the time of day. Until then, gods, could they be more transparent with the brown-hating?
This sentiment brought to you by a fairly debauched weekend.
It was a good weekend, indeed. Paul, Doug, and I shut the place down. Kids today got no endurance.
KJ called me Sunday afternoon and left a voicemail: "I just want you to know that Kevin is still in his car but has transitioned to the front seat." Bless his heart. I was still laughing Sunday morning.
99: Also because there was only one guy praying, not a team. And there haven't been a whole lot of Jewish terrorist hijackers lately. And the Jewish groups didn't threaten to sue anybody. And...
The 9/11 hijackers didn't pray publicly. They also weren't old and blind.
The imams on the plane didn't sue while they were on the plane, so I'm not quite sure why that's relevant to whether their behavior was suspicious. (Though, it would be an entertaining lawyer jihad.)
My gloss: once Nervous Nellie sees the imams praying, everything they do is interpreted as suspicious. Upgrade seats? Planning to charge the (locked, post 9/11) cockpit. Switch seats? Blind one's a decoy. Planning their plan to charge the cockpit. Ask for a seatbelt extension for the fat one? He's a decoy, so they can strangle the flight attendant. Read the in-flight magazine? Planning to block the escape routes. Order a Coke? Needs the blood sugar rush for Allah. Doesn't order a Coke? Proof! that he's not American.
If someone could tell me what they did that was criminal or suspicious, that would be great, because it seems like some people's imaginations ran away with them.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't pray publicly.
No, but because of what they did do, people are on the lookout for unusual coordinated behavior by groups of Muslim passengers. Even so, thousands of Muslims fly on airplanes every day in America without getting reported by their fellow passengers and kicked off the plane. So, which is more likely?
(1) The plane these imams boarded just happened to be loaded with hyper-bigots determined to hassle them for no reason, or
(2) The imams deliberately tried to inspire complaints from passengers, thus handily manufacturing a civil-rights kerfuffle for them to grandstand about while also providing the pretext for their subsequent lawsuits.
110: Which is more likely, some insane conspiracy theory about "manufacturing a kerfuffle" or that a group of imams happened to run afoul of unusually stupid bigots? Unless there's some evidence otherwise apart from their just being a group of Muslims, I'm going with the unusually stupid bigots, thanks. It does happen.
This Jewish man's experience was unusual. Shall we therefore assume he was obviously part of some madcap Mossad plot to embarrass Air Canada? Jesus the fuck Christ. Seriously.
Oops, I see minneapolitan already beat me to the Air Canada link.
110: I'm inclined to say 1). People are jittery when they fly. A group of Muslims (not a solo Muslim, not a family, not a mom with kids) inspires the jitters in some, and once jittered, everything looks like terrorism. A few years ago a number of Syrian musicians were re-routed simply because there were a lot of them, they looked Middle Eastern, and they had instrument cases which freaked out the passengers.
But suppose it was 2). (I doubt it; only half of them prayed in the airport ahead of time.) It's telling that nothing the imams did was illegal or threatening by any standard (including the investigators who questioned them!) except the one that says 'If you're openly Muslim, you're suspicious.'
That should be worrying, the least of which being that if that's what counts as good public watchfulness, the claim to extra vigilance and security is a joke. Memo to al-Qaeda: if you have them dye their hair blond, we can't see them.
It's telling that nothing the imams did was illegal or threatening by any standard.
Well, if their plan all along was to claim unjust persecution, it would ill serve them to make actual threats or actually break the law. Their goal would have been to be just suspicious enough to arouse concern, and then turn around and say, "Hey! Why are you discriminating against us? We're not doing anything wrong!"
And toward that end, I remember hearing that the imams switched their seating pattern to one that spread them throughout the aircraft like the 9-11 hijackers... ah, here it is. But it's on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air site, so it's obviously a bunch of lies.
114: But it's on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air site, so...
So it's totally unreasonable to suspect that it might be hysterical bullshit, because God knows that never happens. We should probably rethink that whole "Jamil Hussein doesn't exist" story while we're at it. Come to think of it, maybe we owe an apology to Althouse and we really should be worried about Jose Padilla blinking in code.
115: So you're saying the imams didn't switch their seats, or that the pattern they switched to was actually not a suspicious one? Numerous people here say they did, and it was. Are they all lying, or did the reporter (Audrey Hudson) simply make up sources, or what?
111: This Jewish man's experience was unusual. Shall we therefore assume he was obviously part of some madcap Mossad plot to embarrass Air Canada? Jesus the fuck Christ. Seriously.
No, we should not so assume, because he did not then turn around and sue the airline and the passengers on the plane. Jesus, etc.
Numerous people here say they did, and it was.
"Numerous people" being anonymous air marshals and pilots who weren't on the flight, being quoted in The Washington Times remarking on hearsay and vague characterizations of police reports and witness statements. No, that's not impressive. In fact, it's a strong data point in favour of there being no there there.
Bluntly put, I find the "it was a clever plot to make us look like ignorant rednecks" conspiracy theory absurd on its face, and the implication that Muslims must be borderline terrorist operatives for daring to sue over being mistreated by an airline to be flatly xenophobic and irrespondible. If you want to make a case for either proposition, you need to do better than a game of "who are going to believe, the plaintiffs or a bunch of discredited wingnut propaganda outlets?"
if their plan all along was to claim unjust persecution
And what if their plan was to play a gigantic practical joke? Or to get rich by suing the airline? Or what if they were involved in a giant crazy Muslim game of musical chairs? What if chair switching is some kind of weird Muslim tradition that we don't even know about? What if monkeys flew out of my butt?
119: Gawd. Just go ahead and play the butt-monkey card, why don't you, you, you, you liberal.
huff
Many of the sources are anonymous, but some of them were apparently on the plane:
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks
I agree it would be better if we had some names. Perhaps one benefit of the imams' lawsuit, if it goes forward, is that some passengers and flight attendants will have to testify under oath as to what they saw.
B, it's not crazy, as you seem to think it is, to hypothesize that a claim of unjust persecution was the premediated goal here, since that's exactly what ended up happening, while to date there have been no reports of musical chairs being played, or seat-switching being a Muslim tradition. However, I do defer to your superior knowledge about whether monkeys have ever flown out of your butt.
#118: Bluntly put, I find the "it was a clever plot to make us look like ignorant rednecks" conspiracy theory absurd on its face, and the implication that Muslims must be borderline terrorist operatives for daring to sue over being mistreated by an airline to be flatly xenophobic and irrespondible.
They're not just suing the airline, they're suing the passengers. The obvious impact of such a suit is to discourage individual passengers from reporting suspicious behavior on airplanes — after all, why risk getting sued? This is not a good thing.
it's not crazy, as you seem to think it is, to hypothesize that a claim of unjust persecution was the premediated goal here, since that's exactly what ended up happening
It's not crazy to hypothesize that MLK's premeditated goal was to be shot, since that's exactly what ended up happening. Or that Bush's premeditated goal was to lose control of Congress in 2006, since that's exactly what ended up happening. Or that Hirohito intended to lose WWII, since that's exactly what ended up happening.
MLK, to my knowledge, did not shoot himself.
And since Malkin is not to be trusted, here are the same allegations in an AP article (albeit also with unnamed sources):
Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.
It's not crazy to hypothesize that MLK's premeditated goal was to be shot, since that's exactly what ended up happening. Or that Bush's premeditated goal was to lose control of Congress in 2006, since that's exactly what ended up happening. Or that Hirohito intended to lose WWII, since that's exactly what ended up happening.
Really, I have to emphasize this: That's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
MLK, to my knowledge, did not shoot himself.
Despite the fact that the source(s) that reported "suspicious" behavior are anonymous, I think we can say with confidence that the imams did not make allegations against themselves.
Oh, and this is hilarious, too:
after all, why risk getting sued?
"Honey, I think that man has a bomb!"
"Don't say anything, sweetheart, he might sue us."
Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board.
I particularly like the use of the word "chanting" here. Nice Christians sing; scary Muslims chant.
A lot of the drivers I catch a ride into the city with every morning cross themselves before they get on the freeway. Guess I should start worrying that they plan on crashing their cars.
Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States;
They "spoke of Saddam Hussein"? WTF exactly does that mean?
that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding;
OMG. You mean people who *knew* each other and were on the same flight actually *talked* to each other before they got on the plane?
and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.
'Cause *that* never happens. I particulary like the reference to the seating pattern of the 9/11 hijackers; guess all swarthy people traveling together should make damn sure the airline never splits them up.
So unless you're absolutely sure someone has a bomb, you should say nothing? The 9-11 hijackers didn't have bombs.
And your analogy compares (1) MLK getting shot to (2) the imams making a claim of unjust persecution against the other passengers, not making allegations of suspicious behavior against themselves. (That's what I wrote, at any rate, in the comment to which you were responding.)
the imams making a claim of unjust persecution against the other passengers
But . . . . how did they know the other passengers would say that they were behaving suspiciously! Those crafty Muslims! They . . . . can control our minds!!!!!
#118: Bluntly put, I find the "it was a clever plot to make us look like ignorant rednecks" conspiracy theory absurd on its face
Things Beefo Meaty has learned about unfogged, chapter one:
trolls here are GENIUS.
47: don't even try to defend the Hmong, those people are animals.
Give it a little bit, though, and they'll all move to Modesto. Good riddance!
121: Many of the sources are anonymous, but some of them were apparently on the plane
Yes, the people who complained on the plane were indeed on the plane. That's not very dazzling, nor is it compelling evidence of anything, particularly.
And since Malkin is not to be trusted
She really isn't, you know. (Neither is PowerLine. Or NewsMax. Or Captain Ed. Or Instapundit. Or Fox News. Credibility issues all around. It's funny, there's something of a pattern to the outlets pimping the "faking imams" meme...)
And yes, AP also reports that the people who complained on the plane made the claims that they did in fact make. That's not very dazzling, either.
Of course, all those claims are also potentially quite consistent with a pattern of people simply misinterpreting or overinterpreting innocent behaviour. That sort of thing does happen, and is a hell of a lot more plausible than a madcap conspiracy to lure Americans into behaving ignorantly so they can get sued, thereby paving the way for freedom of terrorism. The Washington Times was well aware of just how stupid the latter narrative sounds -- that's why they were reduced to furnishing misleading quotes from anonymous, unconnected airline and law enforcement personages to lend it an air of gravitas.
122: They're not just suing the airline, they're suing the passengers.
Oh, the humanity! 127 is right about the key flaw in your reasoning about this. (Personally, I think their suing the passengers is an overreaction, but it's a hell of a long way from "overreaction" to "perfidious mind-reading terrorist plot." You seem way too eager to cover that distance with awfully flimsy support.)
This just in! Dateline is an al-Qaeda front! Maybe the "faking imams" were in their employ all along!
it's a hell of a long way from "overreaction" to "perfidious mind-reading terrorist plot."
(1) Try to induce people to report you as acting suspiciously
(2) Sue them
Where does the mind-reading come in? You seem to be assuming that, if there was such a plan, the imams knew in advance (through mind-reading) that it would succeed. But that's an unreasonable assumption. Just because you try something doesn't mean you know in advance that it will work out.
And just because you're eager to assume someone tried something ain't compelling evidence that it's so. "Try to induce people to report you" by practising your religion, speaking a few phrases in a language other than English, and having the temerity not to demand the airline seat you and your friends in an unbroken bloc? Your case is, shall we say, not airtight. You've a ways to go to even reach "Padilla blinking in code" territory, and from what I've seen here your chances of even getting there aren't good.
Now honestly, I'd love to continue this, but I'd much rather be masturbating with a cheese grater. Nighty-night.
Ah, but you forget key step (1a): Don't do anything that's actually, you know, grounds for arrest or actual trouble. It's a fine line to walk, especially these days. Gosh, those imams planned well: they did their research not only into what airlines would do, but also into what would be just suspicious enough to send airline passengers into a panic but not suspicious enough for the investigators to conclude any ill intent.
Mind readers, I tell you. Do you suppose we could get them on the line to explain what Dick Cheney's thinking and who the Democratic nominee is going to be?
Ooh, a cheese grater! Great idea! Sorry, GB, gotta run.
Oh, it's the old, scummily disingenuous "get the last word by saying how much I hate responding to your comments" tactic.
Hey, B and DS, if you hate responding to my comments, no one's forcing you to. Next time, do us both a favor and just go straight to the cheese grater.
"Try to induce people to report you" by practising your religion, speaking a few phrases in a language other than English, and having the temerity not to demand the airline seat you and your friends in an unbroken bloc?
Again, Muslims practice their religion and speak in languages other than English on airplanes all the time, and yet somehow aren't being tossed off airplanes right and left. Either these guys just got supremely unlucky and ran into a planeload full of the World's Most Bigoted Passengers, or they were doing something different than the thousands of Muslims who fly every day in America do. I'm prepared to believe that the imams didn't actually plan to get booted from their flight and sue about it, but I am not prepared to believe that the other passengers should have dismissed their alleged behavior as completely normal and unworthy of suspicion.
Um, Muslims do get tossed off planes occasionally. This isn't the only time it's happened. The people who get tossed off often turn out to not be terrorists.
At any rate, that's interesting logic, that if a wrong is rarely committed, the victim of the wrong must surely have done something to deserve it. How often do people get robbed, murdered, or raped?
Hmm.
Another bad analogy. Reporting suspicious behavior on an airplane is the right thing to do, although reasonable people can disagree about whether the imams' behavior should have triggered that response. However, by definition, robbing, murdering, or raping someone is never the right thing to do. No behavior on the part of the victim can warrant it.
Um, Muslims do get tossed off planes occasionally. This isn't the only time it's happened. The people who get tossed off often turn out to not be terrorists.
A few false positives may well be the unfortunate, but unavoidable, price we have to pay to stop the next 9-11. Still, put in the context of the thousands of Muslims who fly in America without getting kicked off their planes, it is difficult to conclude that simple anti-Muslim prejudice, and nothing more, is to blame in those cases where a Muslim passenger is actually booted.
Nope, you're not understanding me.
Either these guys just got supremely unlucky and ran into a planeload full of the World's Most Bigoted Passengers, or they were doing something different than the thousands of Muslims who fly every day in America do.
I was responding to this interesting framing. Every day thousands of Muslims fly with thousands of other, "normal" passengers.
Normal outcome: nothing.
This outcome: Muslims get thrown off plane.
So what went wrong? Was it the normal passengers or the deviant chanting Muslims? This is a tricky one. I wonder what you think: "World's Most Bigoted Passengers... supremely unlucky... or just doing something different."
Yup, it's got to be the deviants. How to explain that they didn't actually do anything wrong? Oh that's right -- they wanted the chance to sue. The terrorist conspiracy reaches even more diabolical heights, as the American legal system is abused by evildoers to tie our hands from doing the always right thing.
A few false positives may well be the unfortunate, but unavoidable, price we have to pay to stop the next 9-11.
Vigilant Americans who want to fight terrorism on airplanes will have to face the minor inconvenience of getting sued. Compared to the danger of a plane crashing into a skyscraper, it's really a small price to pay.
put in the context of the thousands of Muslims who fly in America without getting kicked off their planes, it is difficult to conclude that simple anti-Muslim prejudice, and nothing more, is to blame in those cases where a Muslim passenger is actually booted.
Again, why? Put in the context of the millions of Americans who go about their business without getting robbed, it is difficult to conclude that simple thievery is to blame when an American gets robbed.
OK to be fair I got your point about the robbing thing, which is that there can be times where it is legimitate to create a big fuss about passengers on the plane, so that last comment is a bit of a cheapshot.
But really, I'm not impressed by the mental toughness behind "false positives will create a cost for some Muslims, and that sucks but that's what we need to prevent the next 9-11, so chin up guys, it's a hard world; oh wait, you want me to share some of these costs, oh hell no, America is falling apart, this must be some sort of terrorist conspiracy against us."
Others have made GB's argument before him, but never in such detail or with such care.
To keep the cost of our heightened vigilance from falling squarely on American Muslims, we should have the government send them each a small check each year. Or a shiny penny. I don't know about you, but I hold a shiny new penny in my hand and my righteous indignation just melts away.
Again, why? Put in the context of the millions of Americans who go about their business without getting robbed, it is difficult to conclude that simple thievery is to blame when an American gets robbed.
Oy.
First, in normal, day-to-day life, most Americans simply don't find themselves in situations where they might get robbed. In other words, they don't get robbed because they don't meet robbers. On the other hand, every single passenger on a commercial flight is surrounded by fellow passengers who will ask that he be removed if he makes them sufficiently nervous. So it is a lot more meaningful to note that most Muslims fly without incident, than to note that most Americans don't get robbed.
Second, a robber has no legitimate rationale for his actions. He is committing a crime. So when a robber does strike, "simple thievery" is precisely to blame. But there are legitimate reasons to remove passengers from an airplane. The question is, are passengers who report suspicious behavior motivated by a legitimate reason (observation of unusual behavior) or an illegitimate one (hatred of Muslims)? And given that that the vast, vast majority of Muslims in America fly uneventfully, it seems likely that in the tiny minority of cases where a Muslim passenger is removed, something more was involved -- something beyond the simple fact of his ethnic and cultural background.
Now where did I put that cheese grater...
Barbar, I cross-posted 150 with your 147.
I'm not impressed by the mental toughness behind "false positives will create a cost for some Muslims, and that sucks but that's what we need to prevent the next 9-11, so chin up guys, it's a hard world; oh wait, you want me to share some of these costs, oh hell no, America is falling apart, this must be some sort of terrorist conspiracy against us."
My goal is not to ensure that innocent Muslims suffer horrible indignities while my pasty white Jewish ass cruises along trouble-free. My goal is to stop terrorist plots before they are carried out. Erring on the side of caution when reporting possibly suspicious behavior accomplishes that. Threatening to sue passengers who get it wrong does not.
And given that that the vast, vast majority of Muslims in America fly uneventfully, it seems likely that in the tiny minority of cases where a Muslim passenger is removed, something more was involved -- something beyond the simple fact of his ethnic and cultural background.
Right, something like a critical mass of paranoid nutjobs.
Threatening to sue passengers who get it wrong does not.
Neither does not locking up all Muslims in internment camps. So what?
If you think a terrorist on your plane is going to kill you and thousands of other people, you're going to let your fear of being sued stop you from saying something to someone else? THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH, dude. Where are your balls?
GB, how do you feel about racial profiling as a method of controlling interstate drug smuggling? Asking airplane passengers to turn in passengers who are being Muslims in the bad, scary way -- well I don't see how that accomplishes preventing terrorist plotz from being carried out. And really I don't see what you are arguing aside from that the Imams Under Discussion were being Muslims in a bad, scary way. Is your belief that "Passengers should be encouraged to report to security anybody who is making them feel uncomfortable, because the group of (passengers who make other passengers uncomfortable) is a superset of (terrorists)"? That is about as narrow as I can parse it, and I don't think that holds much water.
And really I don't see what you are arguing aside from that the Imams Under Discussion were being Muslims in a bad, scary way.
Well, there were the seatbelt extensions and the alleged changes in their seating pattern. I don't think that's part of being a Muslim, scary or not.
But the seatbelt extensions and the alleged changes in their seating patterns would not have been noticed if they had not been "chanting in Arabic" and etcetera. It seems like a real stretch to me, to say that those were the key reasons for the whole brouhaha.
seatbelt extensions Just how large are those guys anyway? All of them asked for and actually needed extensions?
And I really don't believe the sinister claims about the seatbelt extensions (is it plural now? I thought it was one seatbelt extension). The flight attendant is a person with judgment, not a vending machine, and she looked at a person asking her for a seatbelt extension and decided that it was a reasonable request. Just because after the fact some panicky nitwit decided that it could be used as a weapon doesn't mean anything.
Gb, I call bullshit on 114. I believe you're arguing in good faith, but think this through. Where did the 9/11 hijackers sit? Don't look it up. You're on an aircraft. You see men sitting. Are they in the pattern of 9/11 or not?
I don't know. I'm sure I wouldn't know. If I claimed to know, you can bet it would be an ex post facto justification. If they were scattered throughout the cabin, they were in the pattern of 9/11. If they were sitting in a group, they were obviously sitting together to make a more effective 9/11-style assault. (You see, they've learned from Flight 93.)
I don't think the passengers should be sued, or rather, I don't think the suit will go anywhere. (Declaring John Does immune from lawsuit seems the wrong way to go.) And I don't have to assume they're the world's most bigoted plane, either; Muslims get removed from planes periodically because a passenger is nervous.
The question is what the airline should do. Right now, it seems they err on the side of extreme caution: the Orthodox rabbi was kicked off the plane because the passengers who panicked thought he was Muslim. Regular Columbos there. We don't have to assume the Most Bigoted Passengers ever; we just have to assume someone said anything and the airline's policy, as demonstrated by the rabbi's case, is to remove any one if there's any complaint of suspicious behavior behavior related to terrorism.
That seems off. I'm all for security, but let's not pretend this is it.
Note that seeing a bunch of Muslims chanting wasn't enough to push anyone over the edge. After all, everyone boarded the plane after the chanting took place at the gate. But eventually, enough factors added up to make the passengers take action. I do not think that being Muslim in "a bad, scary way" should automatically get you booted from a flight. But neither am I prepared to say that it should be completely barred from consideration as one of those several factors.
159 cont.: I just looked around, and I was wrong -- the news reports do say 'some' of them asked for seatbelt extension.
Like I said earlier, I think once you assume "those guys are suspicious because they prayed", your mental narrative makes everything they do look suspicious. If I believe that all young black men are thieves, then the guy on his cell phone outside the convenience store is obviously casing the joint.
Yep, exactly. My family got 'spread out over the plane' on our last vacation, and we were talking back and forth from several rows away, but it wasn't just like 9/11 because we're white and English speaking (and two of us are small children).
I dunno, man. I saw the pix of Sally as Nausicaa. She may constitute a threat to air safety.
I don't like to fly with Muslim seatmates, but John does.
I never stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, but John does.
Do you know the names of the presidents of the US? John does!
And, Cala's 160 is just right.
your mental narrative makes everything they do look suspicious.
Well, yes. We've been bombarded by "report anything suspicious" and "let the police handle it" for decades before 9/11 and flying now is a concentrated dose of official paranoia injection from the entrance to the airport onwards.
It's not all that difficult to know what's going to freak out a bunch of airline passengers. Those imams were either indulging in a set-up or they're the most clueless group around. Either way, that's just too bad.
Ya know, I bet a Muslim mother and father traveling with their two kids wouldn't set anybody off, even if they got split up around the plane and were talking back and forth.
Those imams were either indulging in a set-up or they're the most clueless group around.
I'm going to count that as I win and you are all wrong except for Biohazard. G'night.
That goes against your point that "millions of Muslims fly all the time with no problems, these guys must have done something suspicious." Any one travelling solo, with a child, or with a woman, isn't going to be suspicious.
So perhaps our advice to Muslim men should be to avoid travelling in groups, or if they do, ensure they don't sit together... oh dear... Look, even if this were a set-up (which I doubt), there is a deep problem if our idea of security is "Muslims are suspicious characters."
I'm not sure Biohazard is agreeing with you, GB.
171: I am and I'm not. I'd have to see lots of video tape to know whether I'd have been twitchy. I suspect not, 'cause I know the pilot has the power to bounce anyone trying to get into the cockpit against the metal of the plane until he's mush literally at his finger-tips. I'd bet he has also thought this all through any number of times 'cause that's how professional pilots think.
However, I can't blame the passengers. The force-feeding of paranoia is known to work, and it did. I'd expect that, and so should imams and anyone else flying. If they think a lawsuit is going to reduce that they're beyond clueless.
148 wins.
168: The imams were "clueless"because they should have known Americans would be cluelessly paranoid? I think maybe the "clueless" label better fits those who are more concerned with making excuses for the paranoia than pushing back against it.
174: From all accounts, everyone in the universe knows Americans are paranoid about flying and have been for quite some time. Had those guys been living in a cave? "Clueless" was and is apt, what they're doing now will just get some more dumb laws passed.
175: everyone in the universe knows Americans are paranoid about flying and have been for quite some time.
STFW, they're just supposed to placidly accept this? Are you honestly suggesting that doing so would alleviate the paranoia? Be honest, if the imams hadn't sued, they'd be being painted as terrorists right now just as surely as if they had. "Of course they don't want to see this talked about in court... they were up to something."
They're supposed to get on the plane and sit quietly. Flying while swarthy or Muslim out of LAX is certainly no big deal, I know low albedo people at work doing it all the time. I've no more patience with this pseudo-drama than I do for the idiots who forget they need Xanax before boarding, cause a fuss, and get dragged off.
177: They're supposed to get on the plane and sit quietly.
Yes, how rude and crazy of them to expect the airline to provide routine services without panicking and kicking them off the flight. Two seatbelts extensions! Barbarity! Lawlessness! And for a friend to get up and walk back to offer his blind, aged companion a more comfortable seat? That's really crossing the line.
I recommend everybody actually read the Facts section of the suit.
Or, from CNN: "Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Arabic as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Saddam Hussein and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with one another during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin."
That's why I want the videos. The truth is perhaps out there but we sure as hell don't know it.
I can't read the phrase "seatbelt extension" now without thinking of comment 62.
I can't read the phrase "seatbelt extension" now without thinking of Becks.
The last plane to crash into a NYC building was a small private jet. I demand regular, full body-cavity searches of all private jet-owners and passengers!
180: Eh. Read the pdf. If that account is accurate, we have one guy offered an upgrade by the airlines, three of six praying, one moves his seat, two ask for seatbelt extensions (no mention on whether they requested heavy buckles), one's blind, and one falls asleep during boarding. And they're alleging one of the John Does called when he saw the men praying.
184: C'mon, you know better than that. The PDF is their complaint, not the "Truth". That's why we have trials, juries, indefinite detention, and torture, right?
185: But seriously though, look at the PDF in comparison with the complaints about the supposed "terrorization" of the flight by the imams. Look carefully, and ask how many substantive points are really being disputed, and to what extent the anti-imam version of the story is being supported by attempts to cast the mundane in an ominous and alarmist light. This may help to illustrate with the "faking imams" meme isn't convincing.
I did say "if the account is accurate." Moreover, I haven't seen it disputed: what's been under dispute is whether they did it intentionally to create grounds to sue, not that they did other, not mentioned things that really tipped off the passengers.
attempts to cast the mundane in an ominous and alarmist light
This is the crux of the biscuit, indeed. And given that the flames are being fanned by the usual batshit-insane subjects (Malkin, the Powerline Clown Brigade, the Moonie Times, etc.), my bullshit detector is just screaming.
185: I'm not buying the faking imams meme. I'm buying into the really dumb imams meme, no matter what their original intent.
The end result is going to be bad law, even more scrutiny, and more hassles. I'm not about to underestimate the stupidity of the masses, there's too much supporting evidence.
189: I'm buying into the really dumb imams meme
I mean, hey, maybe it's just inherently dumb to Fly While Muslim. Okay, cool, we can get some concrete advice out of that. ("Sitting quietly" won't do, I'm afraid: if Muslims sit too quietly they're terrorists. I'm thinking along the lines of skin-bleaching, blue contacts, wigs and copies of the Book of Mormon. Or better yet, they should go icognito as Baptist Ministers.)
whether they did it intentionally to create grounds to sue.
I haven't read the first part of the thread, so I don't know who's making this claim, but that's the most batshit crazy fallback position I've seen in a long time. It should always be followed by "Yeah, that's the ticket!"