Newsstand - in-flight bomb-making "dry run" on NW??

I don't think this has been posted anywhere on FT yet:

http://womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711

This is a scary article, although it seems a bit alarmist. The accounts of the FAs' behavior seem particularly strange. And I understand that FAMs can't arrest anybody without a reason, but they can question somebody, can't they? There've been stories on FT of MRers getting questioned by the FAMs (although usually after landing). But I'd think that if the behavior of these guys was really as suspicious as the author makes it sound, the FAMs would have gotten up and asked one of the 14 guys what the heck they were doing. The fact that no FA made them sit down even after the seat belt sign went back on seem particularly bizarre.

And to add a bit of FT nerddom to the post... This was apparently a 753, since the author mentions that it was a 757 late into the article and 753's are usually on DTW-LAX. But on a 753, how would the author have seen all the way to 1A? Aren't the lavs in the way?

This is really scary...

Posted earlier:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337777
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337657

aloha

D'oh! Guess my search wasn't thorough enough (I searched for womenswallstreet.com, and it returned nothing). My bad. Thanks for the links, slippahs.

D'oh! Guess my search wasn't thorough enough (I searched for womenswallstreet.com, and it returned nothing). My bad. Thanks for the links, slippahs.

Funny how the story is popping up all over FT (including the US Airways board). :) It is an interesting one to discuss (and had me thinking, only for a split second, that maybe I should reroute my DTW-LAX flight to MEM-LAX)...

aloha

We could be here all day poking holes at the inconsistency in this story. Don't know if the author is fibbing or just a hysteric but I'm not impressed by this story at all.

yeah... it's really scary the article is being taken seriously. yay for paranoia! :rolleyes:

Is this one way to justify the "war against terrorism"? U.S. Patriotic Act?
I never heard of WomensWallStreet.com.
:confused:

I've been preaching for years about this.

yes it is.

What this points out is that we do NOT have security, but we do have a massive process in America to harass all travelers and usurp basic freedoms, and we KNOW it will not stop a determined bomber.

Accept the situation. Find a cure, or live with it.

Let's see... she was flying on a flight from Detroit -- a place with one of the nation's largest (if not THE largest) Arab populations -- and was shocked to see a dozen Arabs? Please, I'd hate to see what this racist would think of some of the areas I do business in....

I've been poking around, trying to get to the bottom of this, er, scary story. A few blogs have picked up the article, and some are starting to call it a hoax:

http://redstate.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2004/7/15/163528/506

And quoting a quote (it's addictive this blog stuff :-) ) http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000200.htm :

I am concerned about the article you published on your site. I read it through a link from Michelle Malkin’s site.... How is it that Annie Jacobsen knew they had purchased one way tickets? What is the name of the casino and did it check out? What is the relevance of whether the bathrooms used were forward or aft on the plane. Was this “camera” of the one musician’s confiscated? Very sketchy information was given as to how long these Syrian musicians were detained. What's with the "one month" response time pr comment from NWA, that seems like a pr nightmare or again, my fear, a terrible hoax put on by you people for publicity. This alarming piece need more follow up and front page exposure on your site (if you are serious) with updates

Well, as long as we're going to start ripping into it, here's my list of sketchy inconsistencies:

1) Sitting in row 17, she could see the pax in seat 1A on a 757?

2) The FA thought it would arouse suspicion if she wrote down a description of one of the fab-14, so she asked the pax to write it down for her?

3) The passenger was paying close enough attention that she could tell how full/empty the McDonald's bag was at various points in the flight?

4) During a 4+ hour flight, various members of the fab-14 used the bathrooms, sometimes consecutively, and that's somehow suspicious?

5) The FAs, pilots, and FAMs were aware of the "situation," but the FAMs can't do anything until there's an incident to respond to?

6) The FAs, pilots, and FAMs were aware of the "situation," but when half the fab-14 stood up to use the lavs AFTER the seatbelt sign went on for descent, the FAs said nothing?

And I'm sure there's more...

This has little to do with NWA (which makes me suspect the mods are going to move this thread pretty soon), but I wanted to point out Michelle Malkin's blog has an interesting follow up (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000207.htm ) where she says a Federal Air Marshall spokesman confirms that the incident actually happened.

I recognized Michelle Malkin's face on her blog really quick. She's a columnist for the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, which I'm actually happy that Northwest carries on their planes. The mag is a hillarious read, and certainly more engaging than Oprah or Golf Digest or any of the other bland periodicals that NWA loads onto their planes for passengers.

We could be here all day poking holes at the inconsistency in this story. Don't know if the author is fibbing or just a hysteric but I'm not impressed by this story at all.

Maybe it was written by Dan Brown, of Da Vinci Code fame!

I have mixed emotions about the story.

Why would some one not be asked to remove an orthopedic shoe(device)? When I have to remove my sneakers?

Why would a FA not ask a bunch of people to seat down and buckle up when the flights I travel they have no problem telling me (quite rudely) that my suitcas needs to be stored in the bin properly(?)

The story does leave a lot of discussion.

Please, I'd hate to see what this racist would think of some of the areas I do business in....

So if you recognize reality, i.e. that on 9/11 it was 19 ARABS , not a mixture of ethnicities, or 19 Norwegians, or 19 Mongolians, or 19 Peruvians, who murdered 3,000+ Americans, you're a racist? Is there some kind of law I'm unaware of which mandates (and which Islamic nutcases whether they be Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, whatever, will honor) that future terrorist acts must be, in the spirit of Equal Opportunity and The American Way, carried out by a rainbow coalition representing different religions, cultures, races? As Dennis Miller said on his show, pointing out that it was 19 Arabs which murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 doesn't make you a racist, it just means you're minimally observant. Despite the efforts of hand-wringing liberals to pretend that it could have been anyone hijacking those planes on 9/11, the simple truth is that it was 19 Arab Muslim fanatics who were responsible and no amount of spinning can alter that fact. It wasn't a fantastic, against-all-odds coincidence that they were Muslim fanatics. Sure, travelers of all ethnicities must be screened, but those who fit the profile of the 19 who did their dirty deeds on 9/11 deserve extra attention. It's not racism...it's simple logic.

So if you recognize reality, i.e. that on 9/11 it was 19 ARABS , not a mixture of ethnicities, or 19 Norwegians, or 19 Mongolians, or 19 Peruvians, who murdered 3,000+ Americans, you're a racist? Is there some kind of law I'm unaware of which mandates (and which Islamic nutcases whether they be Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, whatever, will honor) that future terrorist acts must be, in the spirit of Equal Opportunity and The American Way, carried out by a rainbow coalition representing different religions, cultures, races? As Dennis Miller said on his show, pointing out that it was 19 Arabs which murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 doesn't make you a racist, it just means you're minimally observant. Despite the efforts of hand-wringing liberals to pretend that it could have been anyone hijacking those planes on 9/11, the simple truth is that it was 19 Arab Muslim fanatics who were responsible and no amount of spinning can alter that fact. It wasn't a fantastic, against-all-odds coincidence that they were Muslim fanatics. Sure, travelers of all ethnicities must be screened, but those who fit the profile of the 19 who did their dirty deeds on 9/11 deserve extra attention. It's not racism...it's simple logic.


I couldn't agree with you more on this. As an Asian American, I am against war in Iraq because it was ill-motivated and poorly desiged. Meanwhile, I am sick of this :-: :-: politic correctness :-: :-: after America was attacked.

If any of those 19 terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 were Asian, I would definitely propose for strict screening of ALL passengers of ethnic Asian. We have no other choice because this is not a fantasy world. It is as simple as that.

So if you recognize reality, i.e. that on 9/11 it was 19 ARABS , not a mixture of ethnicities, or 19 Norwegians, or 19 Mongolians, or 19 Peruvians, who murdered 3,000+ Americans, you're a racist? Is there some kind of law I'm unaware of which mandates (and which Islamic nutcases whether they be Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, whatever, will honor) that future terrorist acts must be, in the spirit of Equal Opportunity and The American Way, carried out by a rainbow coalition representing different religions, cultures, races? As Dennis Miller said on his show, pointing out that it was 19 Arabs which murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 doesn't make you a racist, it just means you're minimally observant. Despite the efforts of hand-wringing liberals to pretend that it could have been anyone hijacking those planes on 9/11, the simple truth is that it was 19 Arab Muslim fanatics who were responsible and no amount of spinning can alter that fact. It wasn't a fantastic, against-all-odds coincidence that they were Muslim fanatics. Sure, travelers of all ethnicities must be screened, but those who fit the profile of the 19 who did their dirty deeds on 9/11 deserve extra attention. It's not racism...it's simple logic.

It's also true that recently a group of radical right Christians in Texas (white males) was prevented from carrying out a massive bombing attack. Mr. Ashcroft didn't choose to publicize this. Also, 2 white males were responsible for the largest terrorist attack on US soil prior to 9/11 (remember Oklahoma City?). So, shouldn't we be racially profiling white males (particularly Christians, we could stake out churches) -- they seem to pose quite a threat as well.

One can choose to live in fear and let terrorists win by showing that one doesn't really believe in freedom, or one can choose to live in freedom and show that Americans really do believe in our Constitution and the promise of the United States of America.

So if you recognize reality, i.e. that on 9/11 it was 19 ARABS , not a mixture of ethnicities, or 19 Norwegians, or 19 Mongolians, or 19 Peruvians, who murdered 3,000+ Americans, you're a racist? Is there some kind of law I'm unaware of which mandates (and which Islamic nutcases whether they be Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, whatever, will honor) that future terrorist acts must be, in the spirit of Equal Opportunity and The American Way, carried out by a rainbow coalition representing different religions, cultures, races? As Dennis Miller said on his show, pointing out that it was 19 Arabs which murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 doesn't make you a racist, it just means you're minimally observant. Despite the efforts of hand-wringing liberals to pretend that it could have been anyone hijacking those planes on 9/11, the simple truth is that it was 19 Arab Muslim fanatics who were responsible and no amount of spinning can alter that fact. It wasn't a fantastic, against-all-odds coincidence that they were Muslim fanatics. Sure, travelers of all ethnicities must be screened, but those who fit the profile of the 19 who did their dirty deeds on 9/11 deserve extra attention. It's not racism...it's simple logic.

This story is a fear-fest. Those who cower in fear are just victims of terrorism themselves and they are the unwitting allies of terrorists too. Way to go! Not! :td: :td:

Mrs. Jacobsen's story is a sprinkling of "facts" with a lot of race-based fear-mongering and imaginative space-fillers and mind-reading. She should start writing pieces for neo-Nazi, KKK or Kahane websites or 3rd rate fantasy novels.

The problem we have and the real threat are hijackings and/or bombs on board. Bombs are the biggest threat, and very little is really being done to screen persons and belongings for explosives that are carried on or for cargo beyond passenger checked-luggage. With air marshalls and/or locked cockpits and explosives screening and a security checkpoint that looks for guns and bullets and explosives (on person/in carry-on), we will be just fine. Of course all the kind of hysteria from the race-based hell-raisers does nothing at all of substantive security until changes are made with the recognition that "identity" (including ethnicity) is not security.

I couldn't agree with you more on this. As an Asian American, I am against war in Iraq because it was ill-motivated and poorly desiged. Meanwhile, I am sick of this :-: :-: politic correctness :-: :-: after America was attacked.

If any of those 19 terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 were Asian, I would definitely propose for strict screening of ALL passengers of ethnic Asian. We have no other choice because this is not a fantasy world. It is as simple as that.

Are you volunteering for a chip implant, around the clock monitoring and/or internment?

Have you failed to note the real news stories that Al-Qaeda is trying to recruit ethnic Asians, Hispanics, Europeans, and Africans amongst others? ;)

As Dennis Miller said on his show, pointing out that it was 19 Arabs which murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 doesn't make you a racist, it just means you're minimally observant. Despite the efforts of hand-wringing liberals to pretend that it could have been anyone hijacking those planes on 9/11, the simple truth is that it was 19 Arab Muslim fanatics who were responsible and no amount of spinning can alter that fact. It wasn't a fantastic, against-all-odds coincidence that they were Muslim fanatics. Sure, travelers of all ethnicities must be screened, but those who fit the profile of the 19 who did their dirty deeds on 9/11 deserve extra attention. It's not racism...it's simple logic.

Well, yes, this is quite clearly racist. You are focusing on the defining feature of their race as a reason to discriminate against others. You could focus on the fact that they were male, but don't; you could focus on the fact that they were Muslim, but don't; you could focus on the fact that they were fundamentalists (like many of the American terrorists) but don't. Instead you focus on their ethnicity and suggest that it is appropriate to inconvience anyone who shares the ethnicity, and you don't focus on other aspects (such as being male, such as being fundamentalists) which are a lot more connected with terrorism that being Arab.

Now, having said that, and being a strong civil libertarian (ACLU member), I understand the fear and concern, and I'm not saying all that fear and concern is unwarrented. If our government is to be trusted (forget for the moment that I don't trust them), intelligence suggests that more attacks can be forthcoming. So what do we do.

1) Reports are coming in (I read one on either BBC News or CNN today) that the terrorists are trying to recruit non-Arabic people to be the terrorists (for example, Richard Reed types). A focus on discriminating against Arabs will miss non-Arabic terrorists, and reduced vigilance against terrorists (because of increased vigilance against "Arabs). Thus it seems that to focus on preventing terrorism is much more important than focusing on Arabs.

2) People seem to be oblivious to the effects of stereotyping (remember back to your intro psych college course - they always told you those concepts applied to the real world). Perhaps some of you have visited places on earth where white affluent males are in short supply (there are places like this in most US urban areas if you can't afford to fly to rural China). What's it like visiting a place where everyone stares at you and wonders why you are there. Did you "fit in" well, and feel comfortable? Probably not. What do you think is the impact of having lots of people look at you with fear and suspicion? Almost all the reports of "strange suspicious behavior" by Arabs after 9/11 (including the people shamefully kicked off Northwest flights) were because of the perceiver's paranoia and how that got translated to the individual's being observed. Not convinced? Try going to an African American area (if you are white, that is) after a riot, and see how the locals respond to your presence, even if you have no ill feelings. When I read the article on the "dry run for bombing" all I could think was "What do you expect people to do when you look at them with suspicious written all over your face? Respond by being friendly?" Think. If you spit in someone's face, do you expect them to turn the other cheek? So, reducing the stereotyping would be a good way to reduce the prejudice which leads to misinterpretations, and misunderstanding.

3. What about self-fulfilling prophecy (another psychological concept; break out those old textbooks)? This is the concept that explains how our expectations of others affects THEIR behavior. Like when teachers expect white kids to do better in class than black kids, and lo and behold it happens! (Before you get on your high horse and start saying African Americans are naturally stupider, as many folks do.. controlled experiments have shown that this self-fulfilling prophecy explains most of the difference in academic settings - refer back to your psych textbook. So, it is reasonable to ask "why is the impact on people who others expect to be shify-eyed, devious, dangerous, etc."? Psychological research suggests that there is a strong impact on people whom are seen to be untrustworthy (for example Gypsies in Europe). So realizing the effect of our racism on the target group (here "Arabs" would be a way to lessen the prejudice.

So what do we do about all this racism, for it is very clearly racism? What do we do in the face of danger, since there does seem to be a risk of terrorist attack?

If we are going to adopt racist strategies, I would prefer we are honest and say "in a time of stress, we are being racist", rather than lying to ourselves.

Perhaps we might ask "why are they still threatening to attack us, given that we've been to war against Al Qaeda (because of their terrorism) and Iraq (because of their oil, and our racism (they are Arabs, after all) and our faulty intelligence (or did the government know it was false and needed to justify an unjustifiable war)). If you want to know why they are still attacking, go see 9/11 - the scene where the mother is wailing because our bombs have just murdered the rest of her family and she vows vengence. If you want to know why they are still attacking, look at the pictures of sexual humiliation by our troops in Iraq. The absolute best recruiter for Al Qaeda has been the US Army and Air Force.

So instead of claiming "we aren't racist", admit the racism. If you want to stop the threat, stop the assault on the Islamic way of life - see them as equals who choose a different way of life rather than as lesser people who need to be dragged out of the stone age.

So what should we do? Focus on terrorism! Stop damning an entire civilization because a small band of fanatics did a very dastardly deed. Don't contine to push normal people to terrorism in response to our murderous behavior towards them. Focus on terrorism. Screen for terrorists, not for "Arabs"; or maybe screen for "Islamic fundamentalists". Resist the temptation to substitute a racist stance - "Arabs" for an accurate stance "terrorists"

If I were on a flight with a bunch of foreign ethnic Arab terrorists, I would want a bunch of Arab-Americans on my flight. They might just be able to talk to the terrorists in a language that could talk them down. [Of course that's wishful thinking since most of today's terrorists don't necessarily care about the ethnicity of those they kill as long as their political point is communicated and terror spreads.]

Are you volunteering for a chip implant, around the clock monitoring and/or internment?

Have you failed to note the real news stories that Al-Qaeda is trying to recruit ethnic Asians, Hispanics, Europeans, and Africans amongst others? ;)

Mr. Evangelist

With all due respect, I have to disagree. It is highly doubtful that Al-Qaeda would be successful in recruiting Asians, Hispanics, etc. in launching similar attacks like 9/11.

One of the major reasons why Israel Airline El Al has been able to defeat terrosist attacks in extremely hostile environment is aggressive screening of passengers based on profiling. How could anyone fail to note that is beyond my comprehension.

If Arabs feel that it gets a bit tougher for them to pass security check, sorry about that. Life is never fair. After all, 19 Arabs committed such a crime that more Americans died on 9/11 than Pearl Harbor. Why there are people in the world who hate America, or if US Middle-East policy has anything to do with that, is another issue subject to debate.

However, to protect civil aviation and passengers from terrorist attacks, the most effective measure is tough, unpleasant screen based on profiling. El Al is the living proof.

I am afraid that you missed the point badly on this matter. :( :(

Let me add that, in a perfect world, US government ought to re-evaluate its policies, in particular the "war" against Iraq. I am afraid that this war would create more people in the Arab region who hate America.

But, for ordinary frequent flyers, there is not much we can do to have any kind of influence in a policy change. So let's stop there for pragmatic reasons. To prevent a terrorist attack on a civil airplane, I don't see any more effective way other than aggressive screening. Turning this debate into a racial or civil liberty issue does not serve any useful purpose, IMHO.

Are you volunteering for a chip implant, around the clock monitoring and/or internment?

Have you failed to note the real news stories that Al-Qaeda is trying to recruit ethnic Asians, Hispanics, Europeans, and Africans amongst others? ;)

NOTE: This is my personal opinion, not to be construed as from my moderator role on FT.

El Al has had to address security concerns throughout the airline's existence.

It would make sense (from a safety/security perspective) for the FAM's, TSA, and Homeland Security to hire 50 El AL security consultants and incorporate the EL AL Consultant's recommendations into our aviation security measures.

RC

This is really scary...

I find this story difficult to believe - I know nothing about the author nor publication source, nor I have seen anything to corroborate it. Furthermore, I have seen no independent news media report of this alleged incident. I consider the veracity of this tale to be highly dubious.

However, to protect civil aviation and passengers from terrorist attacks, the most effective measure is tough, unpleasant screen based on profiling. El Al is the living proof.



El Al does a lot more than just profile their customers. All passengers hoping to fly on El Al (regardless of race) gets a behind the scenes screening that no US airline could ever afford to undertake. How do you know that El Al's success in preventing terrorism is due to profiling, and not a combination of the many, many other measures they use?

In any event, if we're going to profile race in air travel, we might as well profile in everything else. Men shouldn't be allowed more than two drinks on board to stop air rage. No mid-30's white males near federal buildings. Extra screening for white male high school students (to prevent school shootings). In fact, why limit airline screening to Arabs? SE Asia has its share of terrorism. Why not just target Muslims? Or even religious people? In any event, if we do implement this sort of screening, gay people should get a pass on everything. I might register for a pink passport if it meant no airport screening.

Regarding the pax statement "Once on the plane, we took our seats in coach (seats 17A, 17B and 17C)" How could these pax possibly observe what was going on in the forward LAV/Galley area.

To further make my point, look at this seatmap for a 757-300 (The a/c that made this trip) and note where seats 17A, 17B and 17C are located and what view a pax would have from those seats of the first row of FC

http://www.seatguru.com/northwest/B753.shtml

Then this quote:

"Meanwhile, in the first class cabin, just a foot or so from the cockpit door, the man with the dark suit - still wearing sunglasses - was also standing."

How could passengers seated 17A, 17B or 17C clearly observe (and Hear) what the FA said or didn't say to a pax standing by the forward LAV?

Is it illegal to get up from seat 1A and use the LAV????

There is way, way too much conjecture and assumption of trouble being made without any hard facts.

Some of the explanations in the article simply would not occur, three examples below are the FA quoted alledgedly discussing matters FA's simply do not discuss:

1) "In a quiet voice she explained that they were all concerned about what was going on. The captain was aware. The flight attendants were passing notes to each other. She said that there were people on board higher up than you and me watching the men."

This also wouldn't be discussed by an FA with a pax:

2) "Approximately 10 minutes later, that same flight attendant came by with the drinks cart. She leaned over and quietly told my husband there were federal air marshals sitting all around us. She asked him not to tell anyone and explained that she could be in trouble for giving out that information. She then continued serving drinks."

then the FA asking the following is also not credible

3) "About 20 minutes later the same flight attendant returned. Leaning over and whispering, she asked my husband to write a description of the yellow-shirted man sitting across from us. She explained it would look too suspicious if she wrote the information. She asked my husband to slip the note to her when he was done."

discussing security measures with a pax on a flight is grounds for an airline employee being terminated on the spot, all airline employees are required (in witing) to NOT discuss security measures with anyone. Further, there are many other holes in the report.

On final approach to LAX this senerio seems impossible. The FA's ALWAYS will announce for pax to sit down while the plane is on final approach. I cannot believe that this could of happened on NW:

"Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby. One of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down."

As a frequent flier that travels 200+ flights/year on NW I give this article a rating of a MINUS 10 (on a scale of 1-10) and think the reporter should have tried to collaberate the report with other pax or verify the facts.

If that was not and still is not possible, then she should retract the story.

RC

I have mixed emotions about the story.

Why would some one not be asked to remove an orthopedic shoe(device)? When I have to remove my sneakers?

Why would a FA not ask a bunch of people to seat down and buckle up when the flights I travel they have no problem telling me (quite rudely) that my suitcas needs to be stored in the bin properly(?)

The story does leave a lot of discussion.


We don't know if the orthopedic shoe was or was not checked by the TSA at the pax's originating airport. I don't believe it would be checked or put through further examanation at the departure gate because:

1) The equipment to check/wand/analyse is generally at TSA checkpoints, not at departure gates

2) It is very likely that this pax WAS checked, the pax in seats 17A, 17B and 17C would have no knowledge of this, any conclusions they made would be purely speculation.

This story doesn't get very many facts, most everything is assuptions based on earlier assuptions, based on more assumptions.......

Another example of unprofessional journalism.

RC

Mr. Evangelist

With all due respect, I have to disagree. It is highly doubtful that Al-Qaeda would be successful in recruiting Asians, Hispanics, etc. in launching similar attacks like 9/11.

:) I like the title but am not deserving.

Onto the topic at hand, there are Japanese, Chinese, Uighurs (from China and Kazakhstan and Russia), Thai, Filipinos, Nepalese, Burmese, Mongolian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Malaysian and Indonesian members of Al-Qaeda. If you believe John Ashcroft and talk about non-Al-Qaeda terrorist groups with principally "muslim" membership, then we have Korean-American terrorists too. I think that covers East Asians, right? ;)

Hispanic members of Al-Qaeda do exist. If we want to talk about non-Al-Qaeda "Middle Eastern" terrorist groups, then there are tons of hispanics involved in material support with "Middle Eastern" terrorist groups. Tons from Paraguay alone. ;)

There were a few dozen African-Americans that have tried to hook up with various Al-Qaeda-affiliates and there are tons of Africans from Sudan and Somalia that have close links. If we toss in Mauritania, Mali, Senegal, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and Uganda, then Africans have been well represented in certain Afghan training camps. ;)

To use something from the public domain that you will remember, we have the "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid. AfroJamaican-AngloEuropean.

One of the major reasons why Israel Airline El Al has been able to defeat terrosist attacks in extremely hostile environment is aggressive screening of passengers based on profiling. How could anyone fail to note that is beyond my comprehension.

El Al is good on the security front, but they have also gotten lucky so far and been dealing with stupid opponents when it comes to explosives. In terms of hijackings, the air marshalls work. Another thing benefitting El Al is the relatively small number of flights.

El Al also operates in an environment where institutional racism and religious bigotry is fine with large elements in Israel. It's not something I would like to see here and it's not something that would be permitted by the law of our land. It's not even likely to work here since anyone can mask their religion and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are on the search for mules and recruiting for diversity. ;)

If Arabs feel that it gets a bit tougher for them to pass security check, sorry about that. Life is never fair. After all, 19 Arabs committed such a crime that more Americans died on 9/11 than Pearl Harbor. Why there are people in the world who hate America, or if US Middle-East policy has anything to do with that, is another issue subject to debate.

I think that may be a short-term strategy of questionable efficacy, and even if I concede (and I don't) that it would work in the short-term, it would be counterproductive in the long-term. Race-based hostility would foster generations of Arab-Americans who feel like 2nd class citizens, and I can already foresee that we will be dealing with homegrown terrorists as a consequence of such policies. [And even if they are banned from airplanes, there are other targets. See the Spanish tragedy or the Bali tragedy.]

However, to protect civil aviation and passengers from terrorist attacks, the most effective measure is tough, unpleasant screen based on profiling. El Al is the living proof.

El Al is the exception that proves the rule. The fact that we have so few terrorist attacks on most airlines/flights is due to a combination of the stupidity of criminals, some basic measures consistently applied, and the relative lack of people willing to commit atrocities against tons of other people.

I am afraid that you missed the point badly on this matter. :( :(

I recognize the point(s), the fear, and the substantial security needs. So I haven't missed the point; I merely disagree with the conclusion from the points.

"Profiling" or identity-based "security" is a lazy, ineffective comfort action which is guaranteed to face critical failure in the long-term. There are three fundamental sources of terrorism risk to a plane:

1) sabotage
2) crew complicity and other "inside jobs"
3) hijacking using implements of violence (guns, explosives, knives, improvised weapons, words, hands/feet/teeth/body & chemical sprays)
4) explosives
5) bio-agents & or chemical-agents

Identity-based "security" borrowed in whole from El Al for application in the US is likely to fail to address the above five items very well. (Above items are not discrete and could involve combinations/permutations of the above items in the air or on the ground.)

Start thinking about "security" with those 5 items in mind and the conclusions become more clear as you think about: 1) how to get bang for your buck; 2) how not to create a false sense of security that lulls the system to sleep until it's too late; and 3) how alienation of "threat" populations create more long-term threats that could involve or go beyond the "threat"-secured zone.

NOTE: This is my personal opinion, not to be construed as from my moderator role on FT.

El Al has had to address security concerns throughout the airline's existence.

It would make sense (from a safety/security perspective) for the FAM's, TSA, and Homeland Security to hire 50 El AL security consultants and incorporate the EL AL Consultant's recommendations into our aviation security measures.

RC

I agree. I thought it was happening to some substantial extent. Some of the airlines have even hired fmr. managers of El Al security & security personnel. I would only hope (but with the government never presume) that DHS and the TSA would have had such consultants budgeted in somewhere within the billions in budgets.

My friend just flew back from Israel on El Al, he was stopped and checked 5 times between arriving at the curb and getting on the plane. They asked him questions like what was the name of your third grade teacher. And he's only slightly suspicious looking. :) Somehow I don't think that level of security would fly here, El Al does recommend you arriving 3+ hours before departure.

This story is heating up...looks like the national media is picking up on it and it will be on the news in the next few days.

Here is an update from Michellemalkin.com

TERROR IN THE SKIES III
By Michelle Malkin · July 16, 2004 03:05 PM
I have been speaking with Brendi Rawlin of Porter Novelli (PR rep for Womens Wall Street). According to Brendi, the Washington Post has been sitting on the true story of Annie Jacobsen's "Terror in the Skies" account since last Friday, when WomensWallStreet.com approached him. Dave Adams, the air marshal's spokesman, not only confirmed the story, but has also apparently supplied witness statements and other corroborations of Jacobsen's account. NBC Nightly News, ABC, and Dateline NBC are now on the story as well.

More to come...

3:24pm. Just got off the phone with Annie Jacobsen. She has been writing business reports and articles for WomensWallStreet.com and print magazines for the past two years. Recounting the flight, she told me "My legs were like rubber...It was four and a half hours of terror." She is working on a follow-up story for WomensWallStreet.com on Monday and will appear on NBC Nightly News Monday night. I asked how she felt about suspicions that her story had been a hoax. She hadn't heard of these suspicions and instead has been hearing overwhelming corroboration of her experience in thousands of e-mails, many from pilots and flight attendants reporting similar incidents.

My friend just flew back from Israel on El Al, he was stopped and checked 5 times between arriving at the curb and getting on the plane. They asked him questions like what was the name of your third grade teacher. And he's only slightly suspicious looking. :) Somehow I don't think that level of security would fly here, El Al does recommend you arriving 3+ hours before departure.

... and statistically Israel is targetted by terrorists some 10x factor more than we are (measured in absolute or in proportional terms).

One of the most interesting "security-related" check-ins I had to deal with was a place where any vehicle attempting to get to the airport was stopped 2 miles from the airport on the road. Driver's and adult passenger's ID checked. Vehicle check including possible requests to open up luggage. Then go up to second check within 1 mile of airport and check is repeated. Then vehicle drops off only passengers (no one else permitted) 150 feet from barricaded up airport. Cart luggage to external temporary building. X-ray luggage and hand bags and search hand bags (but read on). Then proceed to terminal entrance area but prior to entry bags were to be X-rayed again and walk-through magnetometer and frisking and purse or wallet checked to enter airport building proper showing ticket. Then you go to check-in and luggage checked in and screened one more time and find out that NO carry-ons are allowed except for women's purses and men's wallet and small personal items (no laptops even). Wait in terminal full of more armed guards than passengers. Then get called by flight number to proceed to another walk-through and frisking. After that, told to identify your luggage which had dogs sniffing.
Proceed to flight and frisked one more time with a request to check women's purses.

Since that time, there has been some relaxation. The interesting thing was that no "identity" or profiling checks were ever conducted and no request for identification was every made by the airline or airport security itself. No personal questions were ever asked, except for those few related to your belongings. No terrorist attacks occurred despite being in the middle of an insurgency-hit area.

This story is heating up...looks like the national media is picking up on it and it will be on the news in the next few days.

Here is an update from Michellemalkin.com

TERROR IN THE SKIES III
By Michelle Malkin · July 16, 2004 03:05 PM
I have been speaking with Brendi Rawlin of Porter Novelli (PR rep for Womens Wall Street). According to Brendi, the Washington Post has been sitting on the true story of Annie Jacobsen's "Terror in the Skies" account since last Friday, when WomensWallStreet.com approached him. Dave Adams, the air marshal's spokesman, not only confirmed the story, but has also apparently supplied witness statements and other corroborations of Jacobsen's account. NBC Nightly News, ABC, and Dateline NBC are now on the story as well.

More to come...

3:24pm. Just got off the phone with Annie Jacobsen. She has been writing business reports and articles for WomensWallStreet.com and print magazines for the past two years. Recounting the flight, she told me "My legs were like rubber...It was four and a half hours of terror." She is working on a follow-up story for WomensWallStreet.com on Monday and will appear on NBC Nightly News Monday night. I asked how she felt about suspicions that her story had been a hoax. She hadn't heard of these suspicions and instead has been hearing overwhelming corroboration of her experience in thousands of e-mails, many from pilots and flight attendants reporting similar incidents.

This is where A. Jacobsen sounds like a nutcase kook just like the one that filed suit saying Bush had raped her years and years ago and then committed suicide.

Jacobsen was scared for 4.5 hours? Didn't she say that the "Syrian's" actions occured closer to landing and when LAX was in sight. Does landing into LAX take 4.5 hours? :rolleyes: [A flight from DTW to LAX does not take much more than 4.5 hours.]

If Michelle Malkin (a right-wing bimbo herself) is correct in her "reporting", this Mrs. Jacobsen has caught herself in a lie that will be exposed. She was scared from before the flight even boarded. The story of the alleged Syrian men's actions on board the plane had nothing to do with her tall tale; the story has to do with her being prejudiced from before boarding and then peddling her racism into a journalistic tale and finding events to justify it. She could have had a career working for the Nazi Goebbels himself.

In much of Europe, Jacobsen could be prosecuted for advocating hate speech. Mrs. Jacobsen should be thankful that America is a free land where she can speak her mind (and bigotry) without consequence. Too bad America's more respected journalists are buying into this kook's "story" without seeing that a spade is a spade, and that Annie Jacobsen is the Queen of Spades. Jacobsen had racist views before she flew; she had racist views when she flew; and she had racist views when she landed and wrote this story. Shame on her and those who believe this nonsense. :td: :td:

I like this writer's take on the, uh, story: World O'Crap (http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2004/07/16.html#a1012)

I'm sick of wingnuts calling for even more erosion of our civil liberties based on nothing but panicky fear. opinions from anyone who cites Ann Coulter aren't worth much to me.

If James Woods (the actor) had written an account of what transpired in August 2001 on the BOS-LAX flight he was on, where he witnessed some of the 9/11 hijackers acting suspiciously and reported it to the FBI, you ACLU types who ignore reality and logic (and live in a world where everyone is exactly equal in their likelihood to commit heinous acts and if that's not totally true, then it's America's fault, or more specifically, George Bush's fault) would have blasted him as a bigot and racist. Worse than that even....perhaps a Republican!! So you can continue to live in your fantasy world where an 80 year old grandma in a wheelchair is just as likely to hijack a plane or plant a bomb as a 21 year old male with a passport from a Muslim country who's traveling on a student visa. I'll continue to live in the real world and hope that our leaders recognize that it's Muslim fanatics who are out to kill us all. They will also hopefully realize that this country doesn't need the permission of France, Germany or the Republic of Cameroon to take whatever action is necessary to protect the lives of it's citizens. Also that we need an intelligence service which isn't gutted and which might have to deal with unsavory types to get accurate information. If that information shows we're going to get attacked, attack first. Don't wait until hundreds of thousands of Americans lay dead in our streets so that we can then attack without getting too much criticism from Chirac and other corrupt European/African/Asian/whatever leaders. With their record of inhumanity, whether it be the Holocaust, Serbia, or the killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Sudan, those hypocrites are in absolutely no position to preach to anyone.
You can side with the likes of Michael Moore, who compares the terrorists who are beheading or blowing up civilians, to our own Minutemen. I'll continue to support politicians who recognize the terrorists for what they are and don't need to wring their hands wondering what we did to deserve 9/11 and how we're to blame.

If James Woods (the actor) had written an account of what transpired in August 2001 on the BOS-LAX flight he was on, where he witnessed some of the 9/11 hijackers acting suspiciously and reported it to the FBI, you ACLU types who ignore reality and logic (and live in a world where everyone is exactly equal in their likelihood to commit heinous acts and if that's not totally true, then it's America's fault, or more specifically, George Bush's fault) would have blasted him as a bigot and racist. Worse than that even....perhaps a Republican!! So you can continue to live in your fantasy world where an 80 year old grandma in a wheelchair is just as likely to hijack a plane or plant a bomb as a 21 year old male with a passport from a Muslim country who's traveling on a student visa. I'll continue to live in the real world and hope that our leaders recognize that it's Muslim fanatics who are out to kill us all. They will also hopefully realize that this country doesn't need the permission of France, Germany or the Republic of Cameroon to take whatever action is necessary to protect the lives of it's citizens. Also that we need an intelligence service which isn't gutted and which might have to deal with unsavory types to get accurate information. If that information shows we're going to get attacked, attack first. Don't wait until hundreds of thousands of Americans lay dead in our streets so that we can then attack without getting too much criticism from Chirac and other corrupt European/African/Asian/whatever leaders. With their record of inhumanity, whether it be the Holocaust, Serbia, or the killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Sudan, those hypocrites are in absolutely no position to preach to anyone.
You can side with the likes of Michael Moore, who compares the terrorists who are beheading or blowing up civilians, to our own Minutemen. I'll continue to support politicians who recognize the terrorists for what they are and don't need to wring their hands wondering what we did to deserve 9/11 and how we're to blame.

How OMNI.

This topic is based on a direct news link and belongs in the Newsstand.

Radiocycle
Northwest & Newsstand Moderator

As a side note, I feel this thread has degenerated to the point where it doesn't belong to the newstand (it's no longer new) and is more closely related to the security forum (for the part dealing with the effectivement of racial profiling as a useful tool for improving security) or to OMNI for the political aspect. Actually replying to this thread in the context of the newsstand forum is impossible IMHO.

So I will refrain to do so.

If James Woods (the actor) had written an account of what transpired in August 2001 on the BOS-LAX flight he was on, where he witnessed some of the 9/11 hijackers acting suspiciously and reported it to the FBI, you ACLU types who ignore reality and logic (and live in a world where everyone is exactly equal in their likelihood to commit heinous acts and if that's not totally true, then it's America's fault, or more specifically, George Bush's fault) would have blasted him as a bigot and racist. Worse than that even....perhaps a Republican!!

Has that story been proven to be confirmed with date of travel, flight numbers and passenger manifests? [Bigots and racists exist in various parties and have various professions. The after-the-fact "I knew it" types are even more prevalent in both camps. Witness the above.]

So you can continue to live in your fantasy world where an 80 year old grandma in a wheelchair is just as likely to hijack a plane or plant a bomb as a 21 year old male with a passport from a Muslim country who's traveling on a student visa. I'll continue to live in the real world and hope that our leaders recognize that it's Muslim fanatics who are out to kill us all.

Ok... true. But identity is not security and over the long-term, policies such as you are implicitly advocating are likely to foster more anti-Americans than before. You don't want to be an unwitting advocate of terrorist recruiting... now do you?

They will also hopefully realize that this country doesn't need the permission of France, Germany or the Republic of Cameroon to take whatever action is necessary to protect the lives of it's citizens.

:rolleyes: Self-defense needs no permission. And apparently neither does wild-eyed attacks in places not related to conceivable self-defense -- say Bush's Iraq war misadventure.

Also that we need an intelligence service which isn't gutted and which might have to deal with unsavory types to get accurate information.

Alienate enough of Bush's "muslims and brown-skinned people" with "special treatment" that is based in prejudice and racism, and I guarantee you that you will have a much, much harder time getting good human intelligence. So you don't want a gutted intelligence service, but you want one that is crippled at the knees and with many of its best new brains bashed in (by bigotry impacting them and their families)? [By the way, what do you think of your employee relationship skills?]

If that information shows we're going to get attacked, attack first.

Tell that to the Bush Administration. A few terrorists "capture" was prevented/delayed by the highest levels of the Bush Administration. The question is "Why?". ;) [There actually may have been legitimate reasons for the stand-down directive. Then again, there may not have been legitimate reasons.]

Don't wait until hundreds of thousands of Americans lay dead in our streets so that we can then attack without getting too much criticism from Chirac and other corrupt European/African/Asian/whatever leaders.

You haven't forgotten about the corrupt leaders at home? Say insider trading, get-me-a-new-stadium George W Bush and give-me-a-no-bid-contract-for-halliburton-and-contract-to-my-JV-while-I-lie -to-the-American-People Dick Cheney?

With their record of inhumanity, whether it be the Holocaust, Serbia, or the killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Sudan, those hypocrites are in absolutely no position to preach to anyone.
You can side with the likes of Michael Moore, who compares the terrorists who are beheading or blowing up civilians, to our own Minutemen. I'll continue to support politicians who recognize the terrorists for what they are and don't need to wring their hands wondering what we did to deserve 9/11 and how we're to blame.

:rolleyes: Spending too much or too little time in the land of OMNI? :confused:

You sound gung-ho. Want to be a contract employee running around hunting terrorist types in Afghanistan or (better yet) Iraq? ;)

Well, yes, this is quite clearly racist. You are focusing on the defining feature of their race as a reason to discriminate against others. You could focus on the fact that they were male, but don't; you could focus on the fact that they were Muslim, but don't; you could focus on the fact that they were fundamentalists (like many of the American terrorists) but don't. Instead you focus on their ethnicity and suggest that it is appropriate to inconvience anyone who shares the ethnicity, and you don't focus on other aspects (such as being male, such as being fundamentalists) which are a lot more connected with terrorism that being Arab....

...So what should we do? Focus on terrorism! Stop damning an entire civilization because a small band of fanatics did a very dastardly deed. Don't contine to push normal people to terrorism in response to our murderous behavior towards them. Focus on terrorism. Screen for terrorists, not for "Arabs"; or maybe screen for "Islamic fundamentalists". Resist the temptation to substitute a racist stance - "Arabs" for an accurate stance "terrorists"

Truly a well-written opinion. I concur! ^ ^

One of the major reasons why Israel Airline El Al has been able to defeat terrosist attacks in extremely hostile environment is aggressive screening of passengers based on profiling. How could anyone fail to note that is beyond my comprehension.


This is the United States of America. Not North Korea. Not Cuba. Not Parador. (as in Moon Over) And not Israel.

I would rather see more deaths, including my own, than see my nation piss away civil liberties in response to murderous terrorists.

BTW: Been to Israel lately? Is a war zone the kind of environment you want to live in?

This is the United States of America. Not North Korea. Not Cuba. Not Parador. (as in Moon Over) And not Israel.

I would rather see more deaths, including my own, than see my nation piss away civil liberties in response to murderous terrorists.

BTW: Been to Israel lately? Is a war zone the kind of environment you want to live in?

Israel is a place with free press, free speech, regular elections, and a representative parliament for its citizens. It is also a place which - unlike America's three-time domestic experience with Islamist terrorism in 15 years - has on average experienced a nationalist/Islamist terrorist event within its internationally recognized borders once every 60 days, and on a per capita basis, has lost far more than 3,000 of its citizens. It is also a place where: a) your car is examined before entering mall parking lots; b) your bag/purse is inspected before entering movie multiplexes, grocery stores, malls, restaurants; c) suspicious packages lying in public places are treated as bomb material (my son once forgot a bag of laundry at a bus stop - by the time we returned to fetch it it was surrounded by police and sappers); d) access to the air transportation system is allowed only after 1. your vehicle is inspected 1 mile from the airport; 2. you pass through a personal interview based on profiling - when you pass, your luggage and ticket are tagged with a coded marker; 3. your check-in luggage is inspected, either by machine or by hand; 4. after passport control, your carry-on luggage is inspected by machine. If we have another "mega-event," or if terrorists attempt a series of smaller attacks, what Israel does will be our future, whether we like it or not.

I have spoken to intl pilots who say flat-out that the TSA system is a joke, for a variety of reasons. What Israel does in TLV (and what KLM does in my experience at AMS) is time-consuming, human resource intensive, and is based at least in part on profiling. What we see here is the typical American over-reliance on technology, random inspections, and non-intrusive interactions, at minimum cost/manpower and minimum delay for the "consumer."

If anyone has recently flown CO to Israel, you know that even after passing through TSA, you are then subjected to what seems to me to be an Israeli-outsourced interview process.

I would rather live. Period.

I would rather live. Period.


This is exactly what the ACLU liberal types don't appreciate. DEAD PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS OR LIBERTY! They would have us all risk our lives so that some young Arab male doesn't have to get some extra wanding, shoe inspection, luggage inspection, etc. Some even suggest that to do so in the case of an American of Arab descent will turn him into a mad bomber out to avenge the huge indignity he suffered because some TSA inspector asked him some extra questions or inspected his bags more thoroughly than the blue-haired granny flying to Boca Raton. Is that what you think about the mental makeup of innocent Arab Americans who get some extra scrutiny? And you call folks like me racist? Look in the mirror buddy!

If James Woods (the actor) had written an account of what transpired in August 2001 on the BOS-LAX flight he was on, where he witnessed some of the 9/11 hijackers acting suspiciously and reported it to the FBI, you ACLU types who ignore reality and logic (and live in a world where everyone is exactly equal in their likelihood to commit heinous acts and if that's not totally true, then it's America's fault, or more specifically, George Bush's fault) would have blasted him as a bigot and racist. Worse than that even....perhaps a Republican!! So you can continue to live in your fantasy world where an 80 year old grandma in a wheelchair is just as likely to hijack a plane or plant a bomb as a 21 year old male with a passport from a Muslim country who's traveling on a student visa. I'll continue to live in the real world and hope that our leaders recognize that it's Muslim fanatics who are out to kill us all. They will also hopefully realize that this country doesn't need the permission of France, Germany or the Republic of Cameroon to take whatever action is necessary to protect the lives of it's citizens. Also that we need an intelligence service which isn't gutted and which might have to deal with unsavory types to get accurate information. If that information shows we're going to get attacked, attack first. Don't wait until hundreds of thousands of Americans lay dead in our streets so that we can then attack without getting too much criticism from Chirac and other corrupt European/African/Asian/whatever leaders. With their record of inhumanity, whether it be the Holocaust, Serbia, or the killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Sudan, those hypocrites are in absolutely no position to preach to anyone.
You can side with the likes of Michael Moore, who compares the terrorists who are beheading or blowing up civilians, to our own Minutemen. I'll continue to support politicians who recognize the terrorists for what they are and don't need to wring their hands wondering what we did to deserve 9/11 and how we're to blame.

:rolleyes:

I would rather live. Period.


@:-) @:-) @:-) @:-) @:-) @:-) @:-) @:-)

DEAD PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS OR LIBERTY!


:-: :-: :-: :-: :-: :-:

BTW: Been to Israel lately? Is a war zone the kind of environment you want to live in?

I'll be visiting Israel at least twice in the next year (first trip coming up in August), and Israel is no war zone. Sure, they're particularly careful about security in day-to-day affairs (especially involving airplanes and unattended parcels), but it's a very safe and quite pleasant country.

The image you get from the international media is highly inaccurate. The vast majority of the violence takes place in areas that were Jordan and Egypt until 1967--not in Israel proper. My fiance and cousin (both Americans) are in Jerusalem as we speak, and I have no more worries about their day-to-day safety than they have about my safety here in Manhattan.

I would have no problem living in Israel--even though I feel intense personal discomfort when I see Israeli profiling at work. I think it would be hard for any American who grew up in the post-Civil Rights era to NOT have mixed feelings when your car flies through the vehicle check outside TLV while Muslim families are held up for a detailed search of their car. No matter how much I understand that the profiling is "for" my (and the Muslim family's) safety, it just doesn't feel right.

BTW: Been to Israel lately? Is a war zone the kind of environment you want to live in?

Well, actually, yes. I have been to Israel lately. In fact, I am typing this out from my computer room -- in Israel.

You are confusing cause and effect. We are not in a war zone because we have a lot of security. We have a lot of security because we are in a war zone.

And, it is much less of a war zone because we have this security.

I can understand why people are uncomfortable with racial profiling, but sometimes you have to face up to reality.

In December, 1944, the Germans made their last major counter-offensive of the war -- the Battle of the Bulge. It was initially extremely successful due, in part, to the activities of a special unit under the command of Major Otto Skorzeny.

Skorzeny chose soldiers who spoke American English perfectly, dressed them in American uniforms -- often as military policeman -- and sent them behind the U.S. lines to misdirect traffic and to attack from the rear.

When the Americans became aware of this, they started double checking other Americans to be certain that they were not actually German.

Among the American soldiers in this battle were Blacks and Nisei (Japanese-Americans).

Wouldn't it have been the height of insanity for GI's to start questioning the these soldiers as they were white ones? Or for the sake of political correctness should they have demanded that the Blacks and Nisei prove that they were not in the Wehrmacht?

Well, actually, yes. I have been to Israel lately. In fact, I am typing this out from my computer room -- in Israel.

You are confusing cause and effect. We are not in a war zone because we have a lot of security. We have a lot of security because we are in a war zone.

And, it is much less of a war zone because we have this security.

I can understand why people are uncomfortable with racial profiling, but sometimes you have to face up to reality.

In December, 1944, the Germans made their last major counter-offensive of the war -- the Battle of the Bulge. It was initially extremely successful due, in part, to the activities of a special unit under the command of Major Otto Skorzeny.

Skorzeny chose soldiers who spoke American English perfectly, dressed them in American uniforms -- often as military policeman -- and sent them behind the U.S. lines to misdirect traffic and to attack from the rear.

When the Americans became aware of this, they started double checking other Americans to be certain that they were not actually German.

Among the American soldiers in this battle were Blacks and Nisei (Japanese-Americans).

Wouldn't it have been the height of insanity for GI's to start questioning the these soldiers as they were white ones? Or for the sake of political correctness should they have demanded that the Blacks and Nisei prove that they were not in the Wehrmacht?

Good point on the Battle of the Bulge. But I'm confused as to what you are endorsing :confused: I really mean this, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything...

If it was silly, as you imply, to question the blacks and the nisei because the enemy was brilliantly chosen to look like the guy next door, why then, is it OK to scrutinize middle easterners?

I think you mean it's OK because we KNOW they are the enemy and it is easier to concentrate our resources looking for a known group of people.

Again, I do not have a position that I favor strongly, I am just trying to understand your argument, for my own clarity :D so please, enough of the bleeding-heart-liberal labeling already :rolleyes:

I think you mean it's OK because we KNOW they are the enemy and it is easier to concentrate our resources looking for a known group of people.


Obviously, we don't know that a particular person from the Mid East is a terrorist -- in fact, the overwhelming majority are not.

But we do know that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are from the Mid East.

Therefore, it makes sense to concentrate our efforts on the ethnic group in which terrorists are most likely to be found.

If you were in the Battle of the Bulge, you would not check a Nisei soldier to make certain he is not a German. If you were fighting on Iwo Jima you would not check a blonde-haired soldier to verify that he is not a Japanese infiltrator. What is the point in SSSSing a 70 grandmother from Kansas to see if she is an Al Qaeda operative?

They would have us all risk our lives so that some young Arab male doesn't have to get some extra wanding, shoe inspection, luggage inspection, etc.

You are distoriting what others, me included, have said. I hope you realise it. You act as if we do not want likely terrorists searched. I do. And likely terrorists can be anyone. So everyone should be checked - the aim should be to stop terrorists, rather than stopping Arabs, or Arab-Americans. Thus profiling is discrimination, and yes, it does alienate those profiled (as we in the US have found about the effect of profiling on Africa Americans.

Some even suggest that to do so in the case of an American of Arab descent will turn him into a mad bomber out to avenge the huge indignity he suffered because some TSA inspector asked him some extra questions or inspected his bags more thoroughly than the blue-haired granny flying to Boca Raton.

Yes, and when will you get that. When you set up a system to discriminate people, they rightfully get upset about the effects of unjust dicrimination and prejudice.

Is that what you think about the mental makeup of innocent Arab Americans who get some extra scrutiny?

Its what I know about the effects of prejudice on the victims. Check out a standard psychology textbook and review some of the research. Prejudice and discrimination does have negative effects on those whom it is practiced on. It also had negative effects on those who practice it, and lose their moral compass.

And you call folks like me racist? Look in the mirror buddy!

I feel oK when I look in the mirror. When I read your thoughts on the situation, it is clear you are racist. You think that treating everyone as guilty on based of their race is not racism. Sorry, it is.

Why is it as soon as terrorism comes up on these boards it doesnt take a few posts before it gets around to ( in order):
1) El Al
2) Isreal
3) Nazis

Are the Isrealis the ONLY victims of terrorism in the whole wide world?
mike

Actually, they are not, but I suppose they have the best killed citizen / population ratio. So they are probably more knowledgeable (or experienced, at least) in matter of terrorism.

In absolute number, China is the most terrorist-ridden country. However, well, given their overall population, you're less likely to be concerned, and the FT community is not very aware of the impact it may or may not have on their airlines, etc.

Actually, they are not, but I suppose they have the best killed citizen / population ratio. So they are probably more knowledgeable (or experienced, at least) in matter of terrorism.

I assume by "best" you mean "highest" and not "most good?"

In absolute number, China is the most terrorist-ridden country. However, well, given their overall population, you're less likely to be concerned, and the FT community is not very aware of the impact it may or may not have on their airlines, etc.

China has similar airport security to the US. Most "terrorism" in China involves things like rat poison and farm implements, not sophisticated explosives or instrument-certified hijackers, because most terrorism in China to date has been committed by very poor people without access to international terrorist financing. China's mostly isolationsist foreign policy (militarily, not economically) has also kept China off the international terrorist networks' lists of targets, and the complete lack of civil liberties in the country makes it harder for anyone to put together anything large-scale.

Many of my Chinese friends are quick to point out certain parallels between anti-Chinese sentiment in much of Southeast Asia (and beyond) and anti-Semitism in the West. But as of my last 5 trips to China, nobody was interviewing every pax before boarding (except for the LY TLV-PEK flight I once took, where I got the usual LY interview). And you don't see Air China security frisking (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=614454) the ground crew before they can approach the plane.

Too much hatred out there in the world...

Why is it as soon as terrorism comes up on these boards it doesnt take a few posts before it gets around to ( in order):
1) El Al
2) Isreal
3) Nazis

Are the Isrealis the ONLY victims of terrorism in the whole wide world?
mike

Nope, but you don't see the Janjaweed trying to hijack black airliners. They're content to just rape, pillage, and massacre non-Arab Sudanese.

You think that treating everyone as guilty on based of their race is not racism. Sorry, it is.

There is a difference between racism and realism and realism dictates that when you don't have the resources to check everyone thoroughly you concentrate on the most likely groups.

If the Crips and Bloods had been blowing up planes it would make most sense to concentrate on young Black men. However, they have not been doing so.

If the Jewish Defense League had taken to hijacking airplanes, then it would be reasonable to search Jews more thoroughly. The JDL, however, has not been doing this.

If a white, American, Episcopalian terrorist group had been operating than I would want white, American, Episcopalians given the closest looks. This, too, has not been the case.

The simple fact is that Arab Moslems (as opposed to Turkish Moslems or Arab Christians), are the ones doing most of the terrorist acts in the Western world today.

You might not like that fact. You might prefer that it be Italian Catholics or Thai Buddhists, but it is a fact.

Nobody is contending that most Arab Moslems are terrorists -- indeed, the very heavy majority are not. Still, if an act of terrorism is going to happen in the Western world tomorrow, the odds are that it will be at the hands of an Arab Moslem.

This is not a matter of "treating everyone as guilty." My surname, which is Hebrew, sounds very much like Arabic. As you might imagine, I get SSSSed a lot. At first, it did not bother me because it made sense -- and I did not feel like I was being treated "as guilty".

Today, it does bother me -- because I learned that I am not getting the SSSS treatment because of my name. I am getting it because I buy my ticket in Tel Aviv. When I purchase it in the States, I don't get the special security checks.

As none of the 9/11 terrorists bought their tickets in foreign countries (and certainly not in Israel) it makes no sense to use that as a basis for determining who will get SSSSed.

It is simply more politically correct to check somebody because of where he bought his ticket, or when he bought it, or if it is one way, than because he is a Arab Moslem.

It is also easier to look for a dropped key in a well lit room but it is rather foolish if you think you lost it outside.

In absolute number, China is the most terrorist-ridden country. However, well, given their overall population, you're less likely to be concerned, and the FT community is not very aware of the impact it may or may not have on their airlines, etc.

I beg to differ.

Have you visit China recently? As an American, I travel to China 4-5 times a year and have never felt unsafe there.

Could you please show us some hard evidence about the "absolute number" of terrorist acts in China?

According to the US State Department

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips_china.html

"China has a low crime rate; however crime has increased in the past few years, principally in the major cities. U.S. citizens and other foreigners have seldom been victims of violent crime."

Anyone who has visited China could testify that it is quite safe to travel in China. Your description of China as the "most terrorist-ridden" country is grossly mistaken, IMHO.

:td: :td: :td: :td:

Nope, but you don't see the Janjaweed trying to hijack black airliners. They're content to just rape, pillage, and massacre non-Arab Sudanese.

Very selective choice of an answer.
Just could' nt resist even in a half-hearted attempt at showing some sort of nuetrality or impartiality could you?

Oh I neglected to list # 4) anti-semetic.

mike

Travel is indeed quite safe for a foreigner in China. Crime rate is indeed low. But a low rate out of 1,2 billion inhabitants still gives a high absolute number of crimes, even if the relative number is low. That was my point : everyone is talking about El Al and Israel because, comparatively, they have to deal with criminality much more frequently than other countries, that may suffer from it but have a larger population than Israel's. That's why Chinese are not quoted when we're speaking about security related problems.

You obviously missed my point totally : I was not saying that China is a dangerous country to be in... :rolleyes:

Mr. Wonder,

Thanks for the lengthy reply---- I can see some of your points :)

This topic is becoming more and more complicated. Originally an event (possibly) occured on a NW flight is now converted to issues involving anti-semitism, El Al, Bush Administration, TSA, ACLU, etc.

If some of the posts were not that emotional, this thread could be thought-provoking or even entertaining.....

Anyway, it is clear to me that it is a debate nobody can win...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:) I like the title but am not deserving.

Onto the topic at hand, there are Japanese, Chinese, Uighurs (from China and Kazakhstan and Russia), Thai, Filipinos, Nepalese, Burmese, Mongolian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Malaysian and Indonesian members of Al-Qaeda. If you believe John Ashcroft and talk about non-Al-Qaeda terrorist groups with principally "muslim" membership, then we have Korean-American terrorists too. I think that covers East Asians, right? ;)

Hispanic members of Al-Qaeda do exist. If we want to talk about non-Al-Qaeda "Middle Eastern" terrorist groups, then there are tons of hispanics involved in material support with "Middle Eastern" terrorist groups. Tons from Paraguay alone. ;)

There were a few dozen African-Americans that have tried to hook up with various Al-Qaeda-affiliates and there are tons of Africans from Sudan and Somalia that have close links. If we toss in Mauritania, Mali, Senegal, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and Uganda, then Africans have been well represented in certain Afghan training camps. ;)

To use something from the public domain that you will remember, we have the "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid. AfroJamaican-AngloEuropean.



El Al is good on the security front, but they have also gotten lucky so far and been dealing with stupid opponents when it comes to explosives. In terms of hijackings, the air marshalls work. Another thing benefitting El Al is the relatively small number of flights.

El Al also operates in an environment where institutional racism and religious bigotry is fine with large elements in Israel. It's not something I would like to see here and it's not something that would be permitted by the law of our land. It's not even likely to work here since anyone can mask their religion and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are on the search for mules and recruiting for diversity. ;)



I think that may be a short-term strategy of questionable efficacy, and even if I concede (and I don't) that it would work in the short-term, it would be counterproductive in the long-term. Race-based hostility would foster generations of Arab-Americans who feel like 2nd class citizens, and I can already foresee that we will be dealing with homegrown terrorists as a consequence of such policies. [And even if they are banned from airplanes, there are other targets. See the Spanish tragedy or the Bali tragedy.]



El Al is the exception that proves the rule. The fact that we have so few terrorist attacks on most airlines/flights is due to a combination of the stupidity of criminals, some basic measures consistently applied, and the relative lack of people willing to commit atrocities against tons of other people.



I recognize the point(s), the fear, and the substantial security needs. So I haven't missed the point; I merely disagree with the conclusion from the points.

"Profiling" or identity-based "security" is a lazy, ineffective comfort action which is guaranteed to face critical failure in the long-term. There are three fundamental sources of terrorism risk to a plane:

1) sabotage
2) crew complicity and other "inside jobs"
3) hijacking using implements of violence (guns, explosives, knives, improvised weapons, words, hands/feet/teeth/body & chemical sprays)
4) explosives
5) bio-agents & or chemical-agents

Identity-based "security" borrowed in whole from El Al for application in the US is likely to fail to address the above five items very well. (Above items are not discrete and could involve combinations/permutations of the above items in the air or on the ground.)

Start thinking about "security" with those 5 items in mind and the conclusions become more clear as you think about: 1) how to get bang for your buck; 2) how not to create a false sense of security that lulls the system to sleep until it's too late; and 3) how alienation of "threat" populations create more long-term threats that could involve or go beyond the "threat"-secured zone.

Travel is indeed quite safe for a foreigner in China. Crime rate is indeed low. But a low rate out of 1,2 billion inhabitants still gives a high absolute number of crimes, even if the relative number is low. That was my point : everyone is talking about El Al and Israel because, comparatively, they have to deal with criminality much more frequently than other countries, that may suffer from it but have a larger population than Israel's. That's why Chinese are not quoted when we're speaking about security related problems.

You obviously missed my point totally : I was not saying that China is a dangerous country to be in... :rolleyes:


Oh :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Still, labelling China as THE "most terrorist-ridden" country just sounds too sensational .........

Maybe my post was too short to be clear. When writing it, I thought it would suffice. I didn't expect it to be read in this way. Sorry for the inconvenience.

This is exactly what the ACLU liberal types don't appreciate. DEAD PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS OR LIBERTY!

What about the ACLU Republican types? ;) DEAD PEOPLE HAVE GUARANTEED SECURITY -- NO FURTHER RISK TO LIFE OR LIBERTY! :)

They would have us all risk our lives so that some young Arab male doesn't have to get some extra wanding, shoe inspection, luggage inspection, etc. Some even suggest that to do so in the case of an American of Arab descent will turn him into a mad bomber out to avenge the huge indignity he suffered because some TSA inspector asked him some extra questions or inspected his bags more thoroughly than the blue-haired granny flying to Boca Raton. Is that what you think about the mental makeup of innocent Arab Americans who get some extra scrutiny? And you call folks like me racist? Look in the mirror buddy!

I understand that there are some who are an advocate of winning the battle today even if it may cost them the war tomorrow. I also understand how your thinking will cost us the war. By the way, what kind of "battle" or "war" is worth winning when we end up following your path and being increasingly no better off than those we have historically opposed? ;)

We can live in chains and be secure or we can live without chains and be marginally less secure. If you want chains, then I suggest to you that even today there are societies that would be more fitting for you than America. I need no chains, but if you are volunteering then I am sure we can find you some somewhere.

One either lives life standing up for something noble and decent (not unnecessarily infringing upon others for a dog and pony show); or one dies without understanding that they stood for crap in life and are worth little more than mere dirt in death. Either way, we are all eventually going to the grave (or funeral pyre or preferred death-rite destination); however, it will just be that, in life, some of us would never circumscribe our empathy for others, while others (e.g., Nazi-collaborators) apparently have/had little issue with circumbscribing their empahty for others (e.g., Semitic peoples) and sending them to their jails or to their deaths.

Obviously, we don't know that a particular person from the Mid East is a terrorist -- in fact, the overwhelming majority are not.

But we do know that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are from the Mid East.

Therefore, it makes sense to concentrate our efforts on the ethnic group in which terrorists are most likely to be found.

If you were in the Battle of the Bulge, you would not check a Nisei soldier to make certain he is not a German. If you were fighting on Iwo Jima you would not check a blonde-haired soldier to verify that he is not a Japanese infiltrator. What is the point in SSSSing a 70 grandmother from Kansas to see if she is an Al Qaeda operative?

Perhaps when you hear the story that 20 European-Americans recruited by Al-Qaeda struck downtown LA, then you will revise your assessment. [It's not that far-fetched, especially when you note that certain European and American expatriates in certain GCC states and Pakistan have had their children targetted for recruitment. (A different kind of security threat, right?)]

By the way, weren't there rumors swirling around that an Al-Qaeda financier/logistics guru and some Sicilian mobster based in Naples were collaborating and that said mafioso was known to have undue access to Al Italia and certain Italian airports? It doesn't take long to put one and one together on why the US intelligence footprint in Italy is bigger than even 4 months ago in and around Naples and Milan.

There is a difference between racism and realism and realism dictates that when you don't have the resources to check everyone thoroughly you concentrate on the most likely groups.

I'm actually not totally opposed to your "realism", but it is racism. Why can't people admit that, then deal with the real issue. To select people for negative treatment on the basis of their ethnic group is "racism". I am aware that the 19 hijackers were Arabs. So perhaps that is a place to start looking. But they were also all men. Why not look at "men" instead of "Arabs"? I think that would probably be a more productive way to find terrorists....
But why stop there? You are saying "Lets discriminate on the basis of race" since you feel race is the salient feature differentiating terrorists from non-terrorists. I disagree. I think "fundamentalist" is a lot more likely to differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists (for examle, most US Christian terrorists, as well as the aforementioned 19 Arabs, were "fundamentalists", believing that their own perspective on diviinity gave them license to kill others. So differentiating on the basis of "fundamentalist" or :not fundamentalist" would do a much better job of deciding whether someone should be searched more carefully.

"But", you protest, "I can't tell who is a fundamentalist just by looking at them." And that, sir, is my point. Since we don't have an easy way to tell terrorists from non-terrorists, we use an easy way to differentiate between "people who make us comfortable" and "people who make us uncomfortable because they are differnt than us". And that is racism. Its using an easy, but inaccurate heuristic to deal with an issue which is painfully complex. And this racism is our shame, it says nothing about the victims of our prejudice,; it says tons about our paranoia, our unwillingness to get to the bottom of the matter, our willingness to take the quick and easy path of "skapegoating" over the hard work of fighting terrorists.

The simple fact is that Arab Moslems (as opposed to Turkish Moslems or Arab Christians), are the ones doing most of the terrorist acts in the Western world today.

You might not like that fact. You might prefer that it be Italian Catholics or Thai Buddhists, but it is a fact..

As you well know, most Arab Moslems take it as revealed truth that white American soldiers are the ones doing most of the terrorist acts in the Arab world today. They are, after all: sexually humilaiting prisoners; torturing suspects; displaying arrogance towards the native population; bursting into homes with guns pointed at innocent people day and night; shooting and bombing innocent civilians. So why do you focus just one way. I see the terrorists as evil, whether they are Al Qaeda, Us soldiers, or Iraqi "insurgents" (or "Iraqi freedom fighters", depending on what side of the fence someone stands). I think all the terrorists should be stopped.

Nobody is contending that most Arab Moslems are terrorists -- indeed, the very heavy majority are not. Still, if an act of terrorism is going to happen in the Western world tomorrow, the odds are that it will be at the hands of an Arab Moslem.

So what is the basis for racist screening then? And given that intelligence reports state Al Qaeda is trying to recruit non-Arabs (like Richard Reed, for example) a focused discrimination n "Arabs" and a relaxed vigilance on "others", i.e. - non-Arabs, is foolish. We should be focusing on preventing terrorists access to targets, rather than on creating terrorists by repressive torture and humiliation. That would be a much better (and morally correct) way to fight terrorism.

Why is it as soon as terrorism comes up on these boards it doesnt take a few posts before it gets around to ( in order):
1) El Al
2) Isreal
3) Nazis

Are the Isrealis the ONLY victims of terrorism in the whole wide world?
mike

No. The biggest victims of (non-state) terrorism today, measured in absolute numbers -- not the per capita nonsense, for terrorism sells not on the basis of per capita but on the basis of absolute body counts (or Palestinians are having a 9/11 every year) -- are certain peoples in Africa (including say the Darfur muslims) and Colombians. Then in terms of lower grade terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, and China are up there. Below them are Pakistan, Israel and many of the Former Soviet Union states. OECD countries (including the US, Western Europe, Australia/NZ, Japan, etc.) have had far less in total civilian casualties.

Mr. Wonder,

Thanks for the lengthy reply---- I can see some of your points :)

This topic is becoming more and more complicated. Originally an event (possibly) occured on a NW flight is now converted to issues involving anti-semitism, El Al, Bush Administration, TSA, ACLU, etc.

If some of the posts were not that emotional, this thread could be thought-provoking or even entertaining.....

Anyway, it is clear to me that it is a debate nobody can win...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

These debates are healthy and good, but they do, as you noted, tend to end up in the same place (and become very OMNI-esque). The least we can expect is better information even if there is disagreement. (And in between all the debates/arguments, there will be some information -- hopefully.) Eventually, you may even know the arguments of other people well enough before they even make their case. :)

I am aware that the 19 hijackers were Arabs. So perhaps that is a place to start looking. But they were also all men. Why not look at "men" instead of "Arabs"? I think that would probably be a more productive way to find terrorists....

Profiling, when done correctly, takes into consideration a number of factors and, yes, sex is one of them and age is another.

If you ever saw the questioning in TLV you would see that -- in general -- young Arab men get the most questions. (This may change in the future because of recent suicide bombings by young Arab women, but this is a fairly new development.)

A young European man, in fact, was generally given more questioning than an Arab woman.

The big factor, however, is not race, sex, or age -- it is behavior during questioning (nervousness, etc) and appearing out of the norm.

Somewhere else on this board I recently told the story of a friend of mine who flew here from Rome. El Al security called me to verify what she was telling them.

She was a Black, female, Lieutenant Colonel in the USAF with NATO Intelligence credentials. Apparently, El Al in Rome is not used to seeing people who fit that description and became suspicious.

On another occassion, I made the mistake of letting them see my Israeli Army reserve officer's identification card. Given my very bad Hebrew, they found it strange that I had this ID and questioned me much more than usual.

These debates ...become very OMNI-esque

Not really. I haven't questioned whether your parents were married and you haven't inquired about mine.

themicah,

There have historically been tons of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang province; news reports get supressed and reporters who cover said story are put to death or locked up far from sight. Attacks there have been in the decline the past 2 years as some of China's economic growth has spilled over and is being used to buy-off people there.

We need to get back to the original subject, or else I will be forced to close this thread.

Radiocycle
Newsstand Moderator

Not really. I haven't questioned whether your parents were married and you haven't inquired about mine.

:D Haven't seen that one.

Any substantive bio information on Annie Jacobsen?

Very selective choice of an answer.
Just could' nt resist even in a half-hearted attempt at showing some sort of nuetrality or impartiality could you?

You asked why the terorrism conversation on FT often comes back to El Al and Israel (and Nazis, but I'll leave that part alone since the only thing involving Nazis here that I saw had to do with the Battle of the Bluge--and #4 anti-semtism is a valid point, since I too agree that the Jew-as-victim card is overplayed, even if I am one to play it every now and then ;) ).

But I wasn't trying to give a half-hearted response. The Sudan situation is the most extreme example of terrorism I can think of today (perhaps it's better classified under genocide, but I would still consider it a form of terrorism). The Janjaweed's brand of terrorism, however, doesn't involve airline security, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Indeed most of the world's terrorism has involved neither airplanes nor Israel. Turkey may have had problems with Kurdish terrorists, China with Uyghurs, Spain with Basques, and the UK with the IRA (to name but a few), but airlines have not been consistently targeted in those situations (well, maybe turkey...).

When it comes to airplane-related terrorism Israel is all-too-often somehow involved--if only tangentially.
I believe (but could be wrong--please correct me if I am) that airplane-related political terrorism in fact began with an El Al hijacking back in 1968 by the PFLP.

As a result, El Al and the State of Israel have among the most highly developed (and consequently most highly controversial) anti-terrorism measures out there.

Is that a more satisfactory whole-hearted response to your query? If not, I welcome you to point out the deficiencies (preferably in Private Message, since this is getting VERY off-topic) and I will do my best to correct them.

Back to poking holes in the womenswallstreet.com story...

Anybody notice how the guy in 1A is always referred to as wearing sunglasses? This is a classic literary device to make him seem scarier. And who wears sunglasses on an airplane (other than Stevie Wonder)?

When it comes to airplane-related terrorism Israel is all-too-often somehow involved--if only tangentially.
I believe (but could be wrong--please correct me if I am) that airplane-related political terrorism in fact began with an El Al hijacking back in 1968 by the PFLP.

As a result, El Al and the State of Israel have among the most highly developed (and consequently most highly controversial) anti-terrorism measures out there.

Is that a more satisfactory whole-hearted response to your query? If not, I welcome you to point out the deficiencies (preferably in Private Message, since this is getting VERY off-topic) and I will do my best to correct them.

Back to poking holes in the womenswallstreet.com story...

Anybody notice how the guy in 1A is always referred to as wearing sunglasses? This is a classic literary device to make him seem scarier. And who wears sunglasses on an airplane (other than Stevie Wonder)?

Excellent points, but I thought that there was a hijacking by a (now-rehabilitated) Kashmiri separatist that was earlier than the incident you referred to. India has had its share of airplane-related terrorist incidents too; hijackings, bombs in planes, attacks on airports, etc.

Peru had the first aviation hijacking for political purposes. Cathay Pacific had one in 1948 that resulted in the plane crashing near Macau. There were a few Cuban-related ones in the 1950s and then one in India in the 1960s and then the El Al one in 1968. That's what I remember reading about a long time ago.

It's also true that recently a group of radical right Christians in Texas (white males) was prevented from carrying out a massive bombing attack. Mr. Ashcroft didn't choose to publicize this. Also, 2 white males were responsible for the largest terrorist attack on US soil prior to 9/11 (remember Oklahoma City?). So, shouldn't we be racially profiling white males (particularly Christians, we could stake out churches) -- they seem to pose quite a threat as well.


Actually I'm pretty sure American society does (for better or worse) profile against white males who seem to be involved with the infamous "militia." And the mainstream media never has much good to say about hardworking but not intellectually-elite rural American (white) men (not specifically associated with "the militia") who own and use firearms.

To call either the OKC plot or the Texas plot (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/07/eveningnews/main592012.shtml) to which I believe you were referring "Christian" or "Christian-motivated" is misleading. McVeigh's government gripe or white-supremacist beliefs are not doctrine for any substantial Christian groups let alone mainstream ones, and these domestic terrorists don't routinely claim responsibility for their acts in the name of Jesus Christ. And there aren't thousands of Christian ministers around the country or world preaching hatred and holy war from the pulpit. And I can't think of a single Christian clergyman who wouldn't publicly condemn these sorts of activities in front of any audience in any language or who would qualify these condemnations with gripes about oppressed Christians somewhere.

Actually I'm pretty sure American society does (for better or worse) profile against white males who seem to be involved with the infamous "militia." And the mainstream media never has much good to say about hardworking but not intellectually-elite rural American (white) men (not specifically associated with "the militia") who own and use firearms.

But they don't make much of the local evening news anywhere either... and rarely make the national television news.

To call either the OKC plot or the Texas plot (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/07/eveningnews/main592012.shtml) to which I believe you were referring "Christian" or "Christian-motivated" is misleading. McVeigh's government gripe or white-supremacist beliefs are not doctrine for any substantial Christian groups let alone mainstream ones, and these domestic terrorists don't routinely claim responsibility for their acts in the name of Jesus Christ. And there aren't thousands of Christian ministers around the country or world preaching hatred and holy war from the pulpit. And I can't think of a single Christian clergyman who wouldn't publicly condemn these sorts of activities in front of any audience in any language or who would qualify these condemnations with gripes about oppressed Christians somewhere.

Let's not forget that the OKC attack date was picked for the anniversary of the Christianist (meaning extremist Christian) group whose compound near Waco, TX was raided and where scores were killed when the FBI raided.

Third world Christian clergy is often as whacked as anything you hear elsewhere. Rwanda-Burundi had clergy who played interestingly vile roles. [Africa has tons of very "interesting" priests who would be doing their countries and the world a service if they decided to commit suicide.] Here in the US, the white supremacist groups and the black-helicopter-after-me "militia" groups have a heavy revisionist Christian approach that is not so different as what you see with the revisionist Islamic approach of Middle Eastern terrorist organizations.

In regards to "Texas Plot", William Krar was acting with white supremacist Chrsitianists that were plotting to attack the UN building in New York for reasons ranging from anti-"world government" views to anti-abortion views (related to the UN Population Fund's family planning activities) to anti-African Secretary-General of the UN views.

As Dennis Miller said on his show, pointing out that it was 19 Arabs which murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 doesn't make you a racist, it just means you're minimally observant. Despite the efforts of hand-wringing liberals to pretend that it could have been anyone hijacking those planes on 9/11, the simple truth is that it was 19 Arab Muslim fanatics who were responsible and no amount of spinning can alter that fact. It wasn't a fantastic, against-all-odds coincidence that they were Muslim fanatics. Sure, travelers of all ethnicities must be screened, but those who fit the profile of the 19 who did their dirty deeds on 9/11 deserve extra attention. It's not racism...it's simple logic.
Pointing out that it was 19 Arabs who did it is not racist. But to assume that a future act will be commited by Arabs and therefore you start harassing anyone who, according to your whims, looks like an Arab is definitely being a racist.

Regarding the pax statement "Once on the plane, we took our seats in coach (seats 17A, 17B and 17C)" How could these pax possibly observe what was going on in the forward LAV/Galley area.

To further make my point, look at this seatmap for a 757-300 (The a/c that made this trip) and note where seats 17A, 17B and 17C are located and what view a pax would have from those seats of the first row of FC

http://www.seatguru.com/northwest/B753.shtml

Then this quote:

"Meanwhile, in the first class cabin, just a foot or so from the cockpit door, the man with the dark suit - still wearing sunglasses - was also standing."

How could passengers seated 17A, 17B or 17C clearly observe (and Hear) what the FA said or didn't say to a pax standing by the forward LAV?

Is it illegal to get up from seat 1A and use the LAV????

There is way, way too much conjecture and assumption of trouble being made without any hard facts.

Some of the explanations in the article simply would not occur, three examples below are the FA quoted alledgedly discussing matters FA's simply do not discuss:

1) "In a quiet voice she explained that they were all concerned about what was going on. The captain was aware. The flight attendants were passing notes to each other. She said that there were people on board higher up than you and me watching the men."

This also wouldn't be discussed by an FA with a pax:

2) "Approximately 10 minutes later, that same flight attendant came by with the drinks cart. She leaned over and quietly told my husband there were federal air marshals sitting all around us. She asked him not to tell anyone and explained that she could be in trouble for giving out that information. She then continued serving drinks."

then the FA asking the following is also not credible

3) "About 20 minutes later the same flight attendant returned. Leaning over and whispering, she asked my husband to write a description of the yellow-shirted man sitting across from us. She explained it would look too suspicious if she wrote the information. She asked my husband to slip the note to her when he was done."

discussing security measures with a pax on a flight is grounds for an airline employee being terminated on the spot, all airline employees are required (in witing) to NOT discuss security measures with anyone. Further, there are many other holes in the report.

On final approach to LAX this senerio seems impossible. The FA's ALWAYS will announce for pax to sit down while the plane is on final approach. I cannot believe that this could of happened on NW:

"Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby. One of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down."

As a frequent flier that travels 200+ flights/year on NW I give this article a rating of a MINUS 10 (on a scale of 1-10) and think the reporter should have tried to collaberate the report with other pax or verify the facts.

If that was not and still is not possible, then she should retract the story.

RC
RC is rght on the mark. The first row is more than a foot or two from the cockpit door. There is no reason why an FA providing a description would be suspicious. I think the author is far too involved in playing her fantasy. It almost sounds like she maybe schizophrenic. Hearing things and imagining conspiracies is a classic symptom.

Pointing out that it was 19 Arabs who did it is not racist. But to assume that a future act will be commited by Arabs and therefore you start harassing anyone who, according to your whims, looks like an Arab is definitely being a racist.

There are three errors in your argument:

1. If 9/11 had been an isolated incident, you would be right -- but it was part of an ongoing pattern.

2. No one is assuming that all future acts of terrorism will be commited by Arabs. However it is a fair assumption that Arabs will have a larger role in terrorisms (in the Western world) than non-Arabs.

3. I have not heard of anyone who suggests harassing Arabs or Arab-looking people. What I have heard is that the limited resources available should be used in the most effective manner -- and that means giving a closer look to the people more likely to be involved in terrorism.

I know this will cause me to be subject to a greater security check (as few Americans would be able to differentiate between my name and an Arabic one -- but this does not bother me and certainly will not cause me to feel harrassed.

My son was in the air on 9/11 on his way to JFK. His plane was turned around and he spent several days in Prague before he was allowed to continue his trip.

He is an American citizen by virtue of my citizenship but before then had spent a total of two weeks in the US. His English was atrocious -- obviously that of a foreigner. Yet he was showing an American passport, claiming to be a naturally-born citizen, bore an Arabic-sounding name, and was a young man in his early 20's.

He was very carefully checked before being allowed into Canada (in fact, he was turned back the first time he tried) and again, carefully checked before being allowed back in the US.

This made sense. It was not harassment -- it was prudence. But as the memories of 9/11 began to fade, so did the determination not to allow a repeat performance. Today, the people who check you at borders (and upon gettig onto airplanes) are less concerned about letting a terrorist get past them than they are about losing their jobs or being sued for "racial profiling".

So they ignore what their eyes and ears tell them and give careful checks based either on foolish criteria (such as buying a one-way ticket) or random choices. This leaves the very ridiculous situation where they can be busy investigating a WWII veteran from Ohio while a 28-year-old Saudi male strolls right through.

This story is currently the hot topic on MSNBC tonight. It is being shown on "Scarborough Country."

They are interviewing the Jacobosens (the focus of the story) right now on TV.

I'm sure this will be rerun on TV later tonight, if you are missing it now.

I watched the Scarborough Country interview on MSNBC. And I feel now, the same as I felt before. I believe the Jacobsen's story. It has been confirmed by the TSA and FBI. No one obviously knows the real reason those men were acting strangely on that flight...but they do recognize that the way they were acting was great cause for concern.

My greatest hope is that this opens the eyes of the TSA - and that greater safety measures are put into place. Unfortunately, I almost think it will take another catastrophic event before the American public will be willing to be "inconvenienced" any more at the airport. How sad...

There are three errors in your argument:

1. If 9/11 had been an isolated incident, you would be right -- but it was part of an ongoing pattern.

What pattern? A selective choice of terrorist acts and terrorist plots (including known interdicted ones)?

There have been more hijackings of planes in America by non-Arabs (that too christians) in America than by Arabs (of any religion). Thankfully, most of the non-Arab hijackers did not kill people.

Globally, there have been more terrorist attacks in the past 50 years conducted by non-Arabs than Arabs. Crime knows no ethnicity; and a corpse is a corpse regardless of ethnicity.

2. No one is assuming that all future acts of terrorism will be commited by Arabs. However it is a fair assumption that Arabs will have a larger role in terrorisms (in the Western world) than non-Arabs.

If we were referring selectively to terrorism committed by "muslims" (and excluding all others), then Arab muslims have had a larger role than non-Arab muslims; however, I expect that to change rapidly -- especially once we ditch the "old allies" and outdated, burdensome geopolitical arrangements -- and the changes are already underway. Expect more C/S/SE Asians and more Russian nationals (of various ethnicities). Expect more ethnic Europeans and mixed ethnicity persons. Expect Hispanics of various ethnicities.

Also, once we ditch various "allies", don't be surprised to see a huge jump in chrisitian and jewish terrorists of various ethnicities and nationalities. If we stick to just terrorists in America, then chrisitianist, white supremacist, and the militia movement/anti-"world order" nuts are far more capable of terrorist strikes within America than any Arab or muslim terrorist group. The UN building in NYC is an obsession of the home-grown terrorists -- as are synagogues and mosques throughout America.

3. I have not heard of anyone who suggests harassing Arabs or Arab-looking people. What I have heard is that the limited resources available should be used in the most effective manner -- and that means giving a closer look to the people more likely to be involved in terrorism.

Well, if we effectively screened persons and belongings for explosives, we would fail miserably if we focus merely on people who appear to be ethnic Arabs. [You know the region fairly well; Israeli and Arab diversity appears plenty diverse, and there are Arabs who could easily pass for European (esp. Mediterranean Europeans).]

We have various terrorism threats. We have the threats coming across borders looking to attack and we also have a growing base of homegrown nuts. [And just wait until the Iraq war veterans return. The homegrown societal problems are just beginning and will feed a new wave of problems.]

I know this will cause me to be subject to a greater security check (as few Americans would be able to differentiate between my name and an Arabic one -- but this does not bother me and certainly will not cause me to feel harrassed.

It is the irony that Israeli jews (amongst the world's most targeted people) are the very ones who are amongst those most likely to be screened in America -- especially given their Semitic name structure, the mix of Israeli ethnicities and somewhat darker features on average.

My son was in the air on 9/11 on his way to JFK. His plane was turned around and he spent several days in Prague before he was allowed to continue his trip.

He is an American citizen by virtue of my citizenship but before then had spent a total of two weeks in the US. His English was atrocious -- obviously that of a foreigner. Yet he was showing an American passport, claiming to be a naturally-born citizen, bore an Arabic-sounding name, and was a young man in his early 20's.

He was very carefully checked before being allowed into Canada (in fact, he was turned back the first time he tried) and again, carefully checked before being allowed back in the US.

I have a late friend's youngest brother who too was situated in a position similar to your son. He is a Yemeni muslim and was born in America yet lived all his life in various Arab countries and France before he returned to the US for college. He speaks English with a heavy Arabic/Yemeni accent but, unlike your son, had no problems when returning to the US.

This made sense. It was not harassment -- it was prudence. But as the memories of 9/11 began to fade, so did the determination not to allow a repeat performance. Today, the people who check you at borders (and upon gettig onto airplanes) are less concerned about letting a terrorist get past them than they are about losing their jobs or being sued for "racial profiling".

Federal government employees are hard to terminate. If a federal BICE agent is afraid of being fired, they should be fired for being stupid and not understanding how hard it is to get terminated or how easy it is to retain their job with the help of the appropriate union/organizations and some allies on the Hill or in the Administration looking for a PR event.

Security is the business of the government (apparently). As such, the airlines need not muddy the waters and become the police themselves. System failure occurs most where everyone is responsible (and thus no one is truly responsible/accountable).

So they ignore what their eyes and ears tell them and give careful checks based either on foolish criteria (such as buying a one-way ticket) or random choices. This leaves the very ridiculous situation where they can be busy investigating a WWII veteran from Ohio while a 28-year-old Saudi male strolls right through.

Yes, there is stupidity like such situations. Then again, the Saudis are privileged members of the Bush clique and of Switzerland. [And no, I am not advocating profiling Saudis on domestic flights; I am advocating giving a two-question polygraph-like test to first time visitors to enter the US if they don't already have a history of coming and going from the US for legitimate purposes which have been validated at least periodically.]
The smart thing to do is to get real explosives screening; and secure the cabin/plane using non-identity based methods. Identity as security lulls the security system to sleep and is an easily evaded layer of security given various workarounds -- domestically the "workarounds" are a joke and internationally it requires little more than money and dedication.
It's late, I need more than 4-hours of sleep to survive this week. Night, Dovster.

I watched the Scarborough Country interview on MSNBC. And I feel now, the same as I felt before. I believe the Jacobsen's story. It has been confirmed by the TSA and FBI. No one obviously knows the real reason those men were acting strangely on that flight...but they do recognize that the way they were acting was great cause for concern.

My greatest hope is that this opens the eyes of the TSA - and that greater safety measures are put into place. Unfortunately, I almost think it will take another catastrophic event before the American public will be willing to be "inconvenienced" any more at the airport. How sad...

Explain how the Jacobsen's were admittedly afraid for 4 and a half hours when there flight was not even 4 and a half hours? The flight left at 12:43 and arrived at 1:51. That's far closer to a 4 hour flight than a 4.5 hour flight.

The woman was scared from before the flight and made the flight attendants paranoid too. The air marshalls felt no need to do anything.

The FBI has most certainly validated that there were a significant number of various Arab-nationals on that flight and that they were here for a legitimate purpose and performances. They have also validated that the person in the first class mentioned is a Christian Lebanese businessman whose father has donated millions of dollars to various non-religious charities in the US and educational institutions in California and New York over the past 15-years. He is also a Harvard MBA and a well-regarded investor in his own right with investments in the US, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

People need to do some fact checking. This story seemed too "polished", so I felt compelled to check into it myself. After doing a little fact checking after first reading it, I got more suspicious and as I found out more tonight, I got more pissed about how people are too lazy to do solid fact checking.

This is nothing more than a cheap ploy by "Womenswallstreet.com" to get their name out there and some "recognition" and perpetuate the xenophobia of the authoress.

The FBI has most certainly validated that there were a significant number of various Arab-nationals on that flight ................ People need to do some fact checking. This story seemed too "polished", so I felt compelled to check into it myself. After doing a little fact checking after first reading it, I got more suspicious and as I found out more tonight, I got more pissed about how people are too lazy to do solid fact checking.

This is nothing more than a cheap ploy by "Womenswallstreet.com" to get their name out there and some "recognition" and perpetuate the xenophobia of the authoress.


Funny how you question the James Woods account, which, if it weren't true, various liberal organizations would have been all over like white on rice, and now the Jacobsen's account, as if both husband and wife are self-serving, self-promoting bigots. The FBI and flight crew obviously disagreed or that plane wouldn't have been met by law enforcement authorities. Just because Woods, the Jacobsens and others point out real or possible security threats doesn't make them racist. One thing the Scarborough piece brought out is that the government wants people to bring possible threats to their attention for further investigation. I'm quite sure that you would point to this as being racist (if it involves Muslims), 1984 Big-Brotherish, and just another step on the slippery slope to a racist totalitarian society. Many of your posts which bring up terrorist actions from many years ago and which involved non-Muslim terrorists, ignore the reality of today's world where virtually all major terrorist actions are caused by radical Muslims, the vast majority of whom are Arab. Whether it's the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, Kovar Towers bombing, bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon, bombings involving Madrid trains/train stations, 9/11, beheadings of Americans in Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Abu Sayyaf terrorist actions in Phiippines, Muslim terrorism in Chechnya and Moscow, Muslim bombings of synagogues in Turkey and Morocco, Munich Olympics murders, hijacking to Entebbe, attempt to shoot down airliner in Kenya, Aquile Lauro hijacking, Athens Airport bombing, LAX El Al ticket counter murders, bombings in Israel too numerous to list, etc etc etc., they all have one thing in common, radical Muslims were the perpetrators.

Yet to hear some (almost exclusively liberal) talk, anybody can be a terrorist. I suppose that's theoretically true, just like it's theoretically true that I might win the lottery. The harsh reality of the situation is that the vast majority of terrorism is the work of radical Muslims, not the IRA, or right-wing Christian wackos, or some other extremely minor role player. Perhaps this offends the sensibilities of the politically correct intelligensia, but it's the way the world is. Because there are limited resources to devote to security, the government should concentrate thiose resources on the cause of most terrorism, i.e. radical Muslims, which for the most part means Arabs, though Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, etc are also in the mix, esp the latter. That doesn't mean others get a free ride. But the ones who are the primary cause of terrorism warrant more attention.

For those who are interested in the ongoing saga of this story, today's New York Times is covering it. The online version of the article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/business/20road.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/business/20road.html) (free registration required to view).

(free registration required to view).http://www.bugmenot.com/ is your friend :D

Basically, what the NY Times says (for those that don't want to read the article) is that, well, the band was apparently a band, and they as they had done nothing particular warranting an arrest or more questioning, they were allowed to continue their trip without further bothering from the police. NYT wonder who the band was (and I praise the FBI for not disclosing their identities because they have a right to privacy) but the article is far more reasonable than the WWS one.

As there is no drama in this rebuttal of sort, I feel it will have a lot less coverage than the initial WWS paper about the flight. The original article was linked all over the Internet, and according to Ms Jacobsen's second paper, this single piece of news gathered a hundred time the usual traffic on their website... While the NY article, which doesn't play on the fear and potential racism of the general public, will probably not be publicized that much...

Explain how the Jacobsen's were admittedly afraid for 4 and a half hours when there flight was not even 4 and a half hours? The flight left at 12:43 and arrived at 1:51. That's far closer to a 4 hour flight than a 4.5 hour flight.

Well, let's see. You get on the plane a few minutes before departure. You get off the plane a few minutes after arrival. So 4 hours and 8 minutes becomes something more than 4 hours, approaching 4 hours and 30 minutes. Most people don't have a stopwatch running, and are going to conversationally refer to the flight as "Four and one-hal hours". Give me a break. :rolleyes: Surely you can find something better to hang your hat on in your attempt to deflect attention from the true issue here.

Well, let's see. You get on the plane a few minutes before departure. You get off the plane a few minutes after arrival. So 4 hours and 8 minutes becomes something more than 4 hours, approaching 4 hours and 30 minutes. Most people don't have a stopwatch running, and are going to conversationally refer to the flight as "Four and one-hal hours". Give me a break. :rolleyes: Surely you can find something better to hang your hat on in your attempt to deflect attention from the true issue here.

She was scared before the passengers even did anything on board the plane. She is a racist paranoid who should seek treatment.

Funny how you question the James Woods account, which, if it weren't true, various liberal organizations would have been all over like white on rice, and now the Jacobsen's account, as if both husband and wife are self-serving, self-promoting bigots.

I was talking principally about the Annie Jacobsen nonsense and not about James Woods' story (which I have never checked out or even heard about.)

Perhaps you should read again and read accurately? ;)

The FBI and flight crew obviously disagreed or that plane wouldn't have been met by law enforcement authorities.

The FBI did not agree with the flight crew and the racist passengers. The FBI (amongst others) did their job and responded (investigated) when the flight crew radioed ahead about passenger and crew "suspicion". Race-based suspicion. Just because the FBI or police respond to a situation does not mean that a kook(s)'s suspicions have merit. Whenever the FBI hears about "aviation" and "trouble" they are going to react if only for performing CYA.

Just because Woods, the Jacobsens and others point out real or possible security threats doesn't make them racist.

When they behave like the woman on a French train who paints herself with a Swastika and screams hysterically about being attacked by what Bush terms "muslims and brown-skinned people", then it's racist hate (amongst other things). Pure and simple.

One thing the Scarborough piece brought out is that the government wants people to bring possible threats to their attention for further investigation.

Of course they want suspiciously threatening activity brought to attention. However, they don't want "possible threats" to hog resources. There is a possibility that a 5-year old kid somewhere in the world may throw a match into a tractor in Iowa's fuel tank. Should that "possible threat" be brought to their attention for further investigation too? :rolleyes:


I'm quite sure that you would point to this as being racist (if it involves Muslims), 1984 Big-Brotherish, and just another step on the slippery slope to a racist totalitarian society.

Muslim is not a race. ;)

Many of your posts which bring up terrorist actions from many years ago and which involved non-Muslim terrorists, ignore the reality of today's world where virtually all major terrorist actions are caused by radical Muslims, the vast majority of whom are Arab. Whether it's the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, Kovar Towers bombing, bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon, bombings involving Madrid trains/train stations, 9/11, beheadings of Americans in Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Abu Sayyaf terrorist actions in Phiippines, Muslim terrorism in Chechnya and Moscow, Muslim bombings of synagogues in Turkey and Morocco, Munich Olympics murders, hijacking to Entebbe, attempt to shoot down airliner in Kenya, Aquile Lauro hijacking, Athens Airport bombing, LAX El Al ticket counter murders, bombings in Israel too numerous to list, etc etc etc., they all have one thing in common, radical Muslims were the perpetrators.

There are hundreds (if not thousands) of other terrorist attacks in the last two decades that you have missed. You are obsessed with muslim/arab terrorism while ignoring other attacks. Selective ignorance.

Yet to hear some (almost exclusively liberal) talk, anybody can be a terrorist. I suppose that's theoretically true, just like it's theoretically true that I might win the lottery. The harsh reality of the situation is that the vast majority of terrorism is the work of radical Muslims, not the IRA, or right-wing Christian wackos, or some other extremely minor role player.

See no evil, hear no evil. ;) Ignorance is bliss, right? :rolleyes: You are clearly unaware of the majority of terrorism affecting people globally and just chosing one slice, and that too a slice based on a hyper-obsession with Arabs.

Perhaps this offends the sensibilities of the politically correct intelligensia, but it's the way the world is. Because there are limited resources to devote to security, the government should concentrate thiose resources on the cause of most terrorism, i.e. radical Muslims, which for the most part means Arabs, though Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, etc are also in the mix, esp the latter. That doesn't mean others get a free ride. But the ones who are the primary cause of terrorism warrant more attention.

Might as well implement apartheid right? :rolleyes:

She was scared before the passengers even did anything on board the plane.

Yes, that is clear from the article. She noticed suspicious activity prior to boarding. Doesn't explain your 4 vs. 4.5 "argument".

She is a racist paranoid who should seek treatment.

Dr. GUW, please elaborate.

This is exactly what the ACLU liberal types don't appreciate. DEAD PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS OR LIBERTY! They would have us all risk our lives so that some young Arab male doesn't have to get some extra wanding, shoe inspection, luggage inspection, etc.

Risking our lives... puhhleaze! Driving to the airport is frought with more peril than any of 14 arab looking passengers on a flight from DTW of all places. I don't consider myself an ACLU left wing whacko or a right wing moron, nor do I condier Benjamin Franklin either when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Are you really living if you have no liberty or rights? All of this patriot act, TSA crap is just a much-a-do about nothing. What ethnicity was Timothy McVeigh or The Unabomber?? Do you know who commits most workplace shootings?? white males in their late 30s, with no previous criminal history. Are there Federal agents working inside office buildings wanding down folks as they come in? I'll bet you this years salary that more people will die this year from work place shooting than from terrorists bombing an airliners! If I were siitting on this plane, and the story were unfolding as described (a big if.) Why not confront the would be terrorists? It is better to control you own destiny than pray some government goon A) is on the plane and B) competant to actually do something!

If you think the TSA, Air Marshalls, Tom Ridge, and Patriot Act are actually protecting you, I guess ignorance is bliss, right?

Dr. GUW, please elaborate.

Please read earlier in this thread on why GUW (and I) are calling this woman racist (And AA whatever, for that matter). In short, it is because they are fixated on the race of the 9/11 terrorist, rather than on, for example, the fundamentalist ideology, the endorsement of violence as a way to influence others, ... or gender, for that matter. But read the whole thread - quite informative...

I was talking principally about the Annie Jacobsen nonsense and not about James Woods' story (which I have never checked out or even heard about.)
Perhaps you should read again and read accurately? ;)

You actually stated (re Woods):
"Has that story been proven to be confirmed with date of travel, flight numbers and passenger manifests? The FBI did not agree with the flight crew and the racist passengers. The FBI (amongst others) did their job and responded (investigated) when the flight crew radioed ahead about passenger and crew "suspicion". Race-based suspicion. Just because the FBI or police respond to a situation does not mean that a kook(s)'s suspicions have merit. Whenever the FBI hears about "aviation" and "trouble" they are going to react if only for performing CYA. [/QUOTE]

I never said they agreed in terms of a real threat existing. How could they know that just based on a radio conversation with no first hand observation?. I merely meant that based on what was reported by the flight crew and the Jacobsens, the FBI saw the need to meet the aircraft. They didn't feel, in their professional judgment, that the crew and the Jacobsens were right wing bigoted kooks. I suppose they didn't have your instant in-depth knowledge of the Jacobsen's character. :p I suppose you feel the crew shared those personality characteristics, though you never specifically stated it. Why else would they agree with the Jacobsens that law enforcement participation was necessary?



When they behave like the woman on a French train who paints herself with a Swastika and screams hysterically about being attacked by what Bush terms "muslims and brown-skinned people", then it's racist hate (amongst other things). Pure and simple. I don't know what the story is with her, but anti-semitism [b]is rampant in France thanks to their large Muslim population, so it made her story semi-believable, though weird, at first glance. Btw, good to see that you can throw in a gratuitous slam against GWB. I suppose his quote, if indeed he ever made that rather innocuous statement, makes him a racist. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice might disagree with your character assasination.






Muslim is not a race. ;)



Neither is "Arab", though you still manage to brand me a "racist" when I use either term. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, when you're talking about religious/cultural/linguistic/whatever differences in what the politically correct uber liberals consider a derogatory manner, you're declared a "racist" even though "race" isn't involved.




There are hundreds (if not thousands) of other terrorist attacks in the last two decades that you have missed. You are obsessed with muslim/arab terrorism while ignoring other attacks. Selective ignorance.

I don't consider events like 9/11, embassy bombings, etc on the same level as some skinhead attacking a black person in Mississippi or a Muslim attacking a French Jew. If you do, I think your internal sense of what constitutes a terrorist attack needs some calibration. That's why the NY Times, NBC News, etc don't report on such attacks in any meaningful way. You'd need a forklift to deliver you daily newspaper if they did.




See no evil, hear no evil. ;) Ignorance is bliss, right? :rolleyes: You are clearly unaware of the majority of terrorism affecting people globally and just chosing one slice, and that too a slice based on a hyper-obsession with Arabs.

Blame our national news media. They apparently share my view of what's newsworthy and what's not. I guess they're blissfully ignorant too. If you consider Al Qaeda's war with the U.S. equal to one African tribe attacking another, or any of the hyndreds of relatively minor events taking place world-wide, that's your problem. I'm an American and the results of 9/11 impact me much more than the minutia you're talking about. That doesn't mean it's not serious to the people involved, it's just not serious to the average American.

According to the followup "Part II: Terror in the Skies, Again?"

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=716

What strike me most, are the following (quoted from the long report PART II)

================================================== ==

Gary Boettcher, Member, Board of Directors, Allied Pilots Association, said, "Folks, I am a Captain with a major airline. I was very involved with the Arming Pilots effort. Your reprint of this airborne event is not a singular nor isolated experience. The terrorists are probing us all the time."

During a later phone conversation I had with Boettcher, he told me that based on his experience, it was his opinion that I was likely on a dry run. He said he's had many of these experiences and so have many of his fellow captains. They've been trying to speak out about this but so far their words have been falling on deaf ears.

According to Mark Bogosian, B-757/767 pilot for American Airlines, "The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think. It is a 'dirty little secret' that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time."

Rand K. Peck, captain for a major U.S. airline, sent the following email: "I just finished reading Annie Jacobsen's article, TERROR IN THE SKIES, AGAIN? I only wish that it had been written by a reporter from The Washington Post or The New York Times. My response would have been one of shock as to how insensitive of them to dare write such a piece. After all, citizens or not, don't these people have rights too?

"But the piece was in The [Wall Street] Journal, a publication that I admire and read daily. I'm deeply bothered by the inconsistencies that I observe at TSA. I've observed matronly looking grandmothers practically disrobed at security check points and five-year-old blond boys turned inside out, while Middle Eastern males sail through undetained.

"We have little to fear from grandmothers and little boys. But Middle Eastern males are protected, not by our Constitution, but from our current popular policy of political correctness and a desire to offend no one at any cost, regardless of how many airplanes and bodies litter the landscape. This is my personal opinion, formed by my experiences and observations."

===============================================

I wonder what my fellow FTs think about this?

Yes, that is clear from the article. She noticed suspicious activity prior to boarding. Doesn't explain your 4 vs. 4.5 "argument".

Dr. GUW, please elaborate.

People are not "suspicious" until they engage in activities that are "suspicious". Said "Arabs" on NW 327 on June 29th could not be considered "suspicious" by any reasonable, non-racist person prior to being on board a plane -- unless you think that someone's race makes them suspicious. Said "Arabs" did nothing prior to boarding that other ordinary non-Arab travelles don't also do.

Those who think that a person's race makes them suspicious by virtue of their race are racists. Jacobsen is a racist and peddled racist hysteria.

You actually stated (re Woods):
"Has that story been proven to be confirmed with date of travel, flight numbers and passenger manifests? [Bigots and racists exist in various parties and have various professions. The after-the-fact "I knew it" types are even more prevalent in both camps."

Because you were more or less implying that Woods is a bigot and/or racist, perhaps you're the one who should "read again and read accurately". I don't quite understand why Woods being on the same flight as some of the 9/11 hijackers during their dry run makes him a bigot or racist in your eyes. It was a factual event...no big deal.

There has been no public verification by the 9/11 Commission or the FBI that any of the 9/11 hijackers had ever been on a flight with Woods. The passenger manifests for Woods' flights in July, August & September did not result in any prosecutions. ;)

Furthermore James Woods is a nut who tends to use racist language routinely. Surprise, surprise? Not. ;)

I never said they agreed in terms of a real threat existing. How could they know that just based on a radio conversation with no first hand observation?. I merely meant that based on what was reported by the flight crew and the Jacobsens, the FBI saw the need to meet the aircraft. They didn't feel, in their professional judgment, that the crew and the Jacobsens were right wing bigoted kooks.

The FBI has to investigate such situations even if the reporting parties are kooks. CYA is part of many job's informal job description. ;)

I suppose they didn't have your instant in-depth knowledge of the Jacobsen's character. :p I suppose you feel the crew shared those personality characteristics, though you never specifically stated it. Why else would they agree with the Jacobsens that law enforcement participation was necessary?

Because human nature tends to think cowardice and preventive action is the better part of valor. ;) The Air Marshalls felt no need to do anything on the flight at all. That is telling in itself. Even on the ground, the "Arabs" were processed with less than an average of 15-minutes needed to clear each. The Syrians' specific visas required thorough checks and facilitated their rapid processing. The Jacobsens on the other hand required an average of 45 minutes of "interviewing" each before being released. Apparently, the Jacobsens are more suspicious than the passengers. Maybe that is what they are pissed about. ;)


I don't know what the story is with her, but anti-semitism is rampant in France thanks to their large Muslim population, so it made her story semi-believable, though weird, at first glance.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is no more rampant in France than it is in the US. In any regard, anti-Arab sentiment is more rampant in the US than in France. But that's a side topic.

Btw, good to see that you can throw in a gratuitous slam against GWB. I suppose his quote, if indeed he ever made that rather innocuous statement, makes him a racist. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice might disagree with your character assasination.

Bush uses language that is unbefitting for a President. I don't think he has a race-based hate bone in his body, but he does make verbal gaffes that are quite telling.

Neither is "Arab", though you still manage to brand me a "racist" when I use either term. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, when you're talking about religious/cultural/linguistic/whatever differences in what the politically correct uber liberals consider a derogatory manner, you're declared a "racist" even though "race" isn't involved.

If "Arab" is not an ethnicity/race, then what is it? ;)

I don't consider events like 9/11, embassy bombings, etc on the same level as some skinhead attacking a black person in Mississippi or a Muslim attacking a French Jew. If you do, I think your internal sense of what constitutes a terrorist attack needs some calibration. That's why the NY Times, NBC News, etc don't report on such attacks in any meaningful way. You'd need a forklift to deliver you daily newspaper if they did.

It's not on the "same level" until you, someone you know and/or care about that is targetted and then you realize a murdered person is a murdered person is a murdered person. Having a cousin killed in WTC and then having another cousin killed by a drunk driver still means you have two dead cousins. It really does not matter what the religion or ethnicity of the person who did the killing was.

Blame our national news media. They apparently share my view of what's newsworthy and what's not. I guess they're blissfully ignorant too. If you consider Al Qaeda's war with the U.S. equal to one African tribe attacking another, or any of the hyndreds of relatively minor events taking place world-wide, that's your problem. I'm an American and the results of 9/11 impact me much more than the minutia you're talking about. That doesn't mean it's not serious to the people involved, it's just not serious to the average American.

The above thinking is part and parcel of what caused Americans to be surprised on 9/11. If we paid more attention to global conflicts and certain critical dynamics, then gathering dangers would be more apparent. The devil is in the details and the dynamics in Afghanistan did blowback, right? ;) It might not be serious to the average American, but it's sure as hell a lot more important than race-based hysteria peddled by the likes of the Jacobsens. At least those "details" were relevant to real threats (as witnessed by the attacks on 9/11).

I wonder what my fellow FTs think about this?

By and large, pilots are not experts in security, international terrorism, law enforcement or national security. Their input is appreciated, but the input of some does not make gospel.

I wonder what my fellow FTs think about this?





Gary Boettcher, Mark Bogosian, and Rand K. Peck are obviously right wing, bigoted, racist nutcases. They apparently think that radical Arabs are out to get us again. Anybody who's non-racist obviously knows that on 9/11, it was just a fantastic coincidence that 19 of the 19 hijackers were Arab Muslims. Personally, I think that next time around, it's going to be a combination of blue haired grannies with walkers, Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn and Methodist Ministers from Peoria who will be out to kill as many of us as possible. That's who we need to screen even further at TSA checkpoints. Despite the fact that Arab Muslim groups are still threatening another 9/11, that's just bluster. It's those dam*ed grannies, Hasidic Jews, and Methodist Ministers who are the real problem. Any screener or law enforcement official who thinks radical Muslims are the problem is simply a right-wing bigot. Hel*, they might even be Bush supporters! :rolleyes:

The story by Annie Jacobsen does not indicate a "dry run". Rather it is a well-written story by a hysterical woman who was terrified by normal actions of Arab males which confirmed her prejudiced notions. Having flown on commercial flights in the Middle East, S/C/SE Asia on numerous occasions, the behavior of the Syrian group is not unusual from what I have observed while travelling there.

Let me straighten this out for those of you who are having trouble reading straight: the hysterical amongst you are reading Annie Jacobsen's story and innundating it with your own fears and prejudices (and one's which she holds too). At it's heart, Jacobsen's story only relates the following:

1) Her husband and her noticed Arab men boarding the airliner and that made them scared.

2) Before and during the flight, the Arabs did some things that made them even more scared, especially their trips to the bathroom. At least some of the other passengers and crew expressed or displayed concern or fear also. These fears compounded until the plane landed.

3) There were federal air marshals aboard, but they didn't do anything.

4) The plane landed safely and normally. They all egressed as rapidly as possible.

5) Agents from multiple law enforcement organizations met the plane and detained the 14 men. They were investigated and released very quickly. They were identified as a band playing a gig in a casino near LA.

6) Her and her husband were interviewed by the FBI and gave sworn statements, then went on their way.

That's all there is to this story, people. That is what is in the text about what actually occurred. Jacobsen does a lot of dot-connecting from one TSA alert or warning to another, then connects them all to the 14 men, who were in fact guilty of nothing -- except perhaps stupidity and/or inexcusable unconcern/arrogance at how their fellow passengers were reacting to them. Nothing criminal.
This has nothing to do with the ACLU. This has to do with common sense and not becoming a bunch of "girlie men" and cry baby drama queens.

Gary Boettcher, Mark Bogosian, and Rand K. Peck are obviously right wing, bigoted, racist nutcases. They apparently think that radical Arabs are out to get us again. Anybody who's non-racist obviously knows that on 9/11, it was just a fantastic coincidence that 19 of the 19 hijackers were Arab Muslims. Personally, I think that next time around, it's going to be a combination of blue haired grannies with walkers, Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn and Methodist Ministers from Peoria who will be out to kill as many of us as possible. That's who we need to screen even further at TSA checkpoints. Despite the fact that Arab Muslim groups are still threatening another 9/11, that's just bluster. It's those dam*ed grannies, Hasidic Jews, and Methodist Ministers who are the real problem. Any screener or law enforcement official who thinks radical Muslims are the problem is simply a right-wing bigot. Hel*, they might even be Bush supporters! :rolleyes:

You cannot address my argument in meaningful ways. Having trouble? ;)

I think that next time around, it's going to be a combination of blue haired grannies with walkers, Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn and Methodist Ministers from Peoria

At least one bombing in Israel was committed by a Palestinian disguised as an observant Jew. And while most Peoria Methodists might be innocent, the Creativity Movement (formerly known as the World Church of the Creator) led by Matt Hale calls PIA home. They're more into small-scale acts of violent hatemongering than airplane terrorism, but I wouldn't put it past them if they somehow decided crashing a PIA-based RJ into Caterpillar HQ would further the supremacy of the white race. You'd be hardpressed to tell a Matt Hale follower from a Methodist Minister based on his physical appearance. Can't come up with a good comeback for the blue-haired grannies, though. :)

At least one bombing in Israel was committed by a Palestinian disguised as an observant Jew. And while most Peoria Methodists might be innocent, the Creativity Movement (formerly known as the World Church of the Creator) led by Matt Hale calls PIA home. They're more into small-scale acts of violent hatemongering than airplane terrorism, but I wouldn't put it past them if they somehow decided crashing a PIA-based RJ into Caterpillar HQ would further the supremacy of the white race. You'd be hardpressed to tell a Matt Hale follower from a Methodist Minister based on his physical appearance. Can't come up with a good comeback for the blue-haired grannies, though. :)

Come on... you know. :) The blue-haired grannies are most often found on MTA buses staring out the window as they slowly pass by.

Blue-haired grannies prefer buses or oversized cars.... what's the TSA and DHS doing to save us from this gathering danger? :D

Despite the fact that Arab Muslim groups are still threatening another 9/11,...

This is where you don't get your racism. It is not "Arab Muslim groups", it is "fundamentalist, anti-Western groups who advocate violence as a methodology". 99.9% of "Arab Muslim groups" do not fit this profile (well, after the fiasco of the US invasion of Iraq and the horrendous abuse of civilians there, maybe its down to 99%). So to focus on "Arab" rather than "fundamentalist" is racist, and contributes to the increased mistrust, suspicion and paranoia.

Any screener or law enforcement official who thinks radical Muslims are the problem is simply a right-wing bigot. Hel*, they might even be Bush supporters! :rolleyes:

Breakthru AA, Breakthru! (with apologies to Doonesbury).
"Radical" Muslims is a step in the right direction. Instead of tarring ALL Muslims by your brush, you are just targeting "radical Muslims" Great. That is where the danger is.

My whole point in my writing above is that when people lazily say "Muslim" instead of "radical fundamentalist Muslim" (or Christian, or Hindu, etc.), they are playing into and encouraging the sterotyping which directly leads to the torture of prisoners in Iraq, the indiscriminant bombing, etc. If we could get the government to make that little switch you just made (from "Muslim" to "radical Muslim", we could be winning the war on terrorism, instead of losing their hearts and minds (which we are currently doing, due to OUR bigotry).

By and large, pilots are not experts in security, international terrorism, law enforcement or national security. Their input is appreciated, but the input of some does not make gospel.

The pilots are not offering their expertise on security or terrorism. They are offeing first-person accounts of what they have seen, heard, experienced.

The pilots are not offering their expertise on security or terrorism. They are offeing first-person accounts of what they have seen, heard, experienced.

Exactly what "facts" are these pilots confirming?

Exactly what "facts" are these pilots confirming?

Beside their "feelings"? Nothing. Their "feelings" of "suspicion" and "suspicious" activities have resulted in the capture and prosecution of how many real terrorists? Zero?

Nothing at all besides "feelings". Well, gosh darn it, I confirm my "feelings" too. :rolleyes:

RANT snipped


Ignore filter on.

I just started a new thread with the following that seems to explain the mystery of #327:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp

This has been a BIG story throughout the Internet and has been discussed in a bunch of threads in no less than three FT forums so I'm contributing this here as well as in Travel/Security.

Cheers,
Fredd

I just started a new thread with the following that seems to explain the mystery of #327:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp

This has been a BIG story throughout the Internet and has been discussed in a bunch of threads in no less than three FT forums so I'm contributing this here as well as in Travel/Security.

Cheers,
Fredd

Apparently Jacobsen failed to note that there were then 2 ethnic "Middle Easterners" sitting in first (if the "facts" of this article are more correct). However, Jacobsen is still being "applauded" by the "security at all costs" crowd. Not surprising.

Aaron Brown on CNN is discussing this right now...

Aaron Brown on CNN is discussing this right now...

Thanks for that.

I watched this woman on CNN. She is a polished drama queen. She even tried to "butter up" Aaron Brown by being a sleazy brown-noser in order to avoid answering his question. Don't poor liars often move their hands and touch their some part of their head, face, hair, eyeglasses, etc. when lying about what they are saying or concealing facts (like this was all about the passengers' being Middle Eastern men)?

The fact remains that Jacobsen's race-based hysteria sells well in the new Amerika.

And all those scary forks and knives that we use to eat at restaurants and on the planes! Ohhhh... I am shaking in my boots. :rolleyes:

She is getting her moment in the spotlight by peddling hysteria. Hysteria as web-marketing tool -- Saatchi & Saatchi take note!

I wish there were cameras in the cabins, for then such drama queens could be more easily dismissed.

If there's a report of tainted (i.e. poisoned) M&Ms on supermarket shelves, meaning people who bought and consumed them have died and some screwball with a vendetta against the company who manufactures M&Ms has threatened to poison more packages of M&Ms on supermarket shelves to kill more M&M customers, you don't have the appropriate authorities rummage through Del Monte catsup, loaves of Wonder Bread, six packs of Budweiser and thousands of other products totally unrelated to M&Ms. Yet you politically correct holier-than-thou types who damn anyone who realizes that radical Muslims (the vast majority of them Arab) are out to kill us all would have the same efforts and resources devoted to those thousands of other non-M&M products as you would to the real problem, i.e. M&Ms. It might make the M&M manufacturer happy that at least other products are recognized (erroneously) as being potential problems and it deflects some of the adverse PR away from M&M, but it might result in more deaths from poisoned M&Ms because limited resources were diverted on wild goose chases when they could have been focused on the real problem.

AuAAdvantage, I congratulate you. YOu have being consistently shifting from your earleir damnation of ALL Muslims, and now have repeatedly said "radical Muslims". That is where the problem is. Radicals (in this case very right wing radical fundamentalists") who espouse violence and follow thru on it are the problem. What many people have been coming down on you for is your prior equation of "radical fundamentalists" and "all Arabs" or "all Muslims". When we begin to focus our efforts on radical fundamentalists (whenther Muslim, Christian (Timothy McVeigh), Buddhist (Sri Lanka) or whatever, then we are focusing on the terrorist threat. But to focus on just "Muslims" is bad - first it unfairly represents the vast majority of Muslims who are not supportive of violence and fundamentalism, and second, it encourages people to move toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum - as we see in Iraq today. The citizens who are being randomly bombed, the men who are being randomly picked off the street and tortured in prison ARE moving toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. After all, if someone is going to arbitrarily discriminate against you, torture you, bomb you, you yourself might drift to that end of the spectrum. And my point in responding to Jacobsen's article is that she is making those errors (unconscious to her though it may be) and is perpetuating increasing racism, increasing cognitive distortion, ... and increading drift of people accused to the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

If there's a report of tainted (i.e. poisoned) M&Ms on supermarket shelves, meaning people who bought and consumed them have died and some screwball with a vendetta against the company who manufactures M&Ms has threatened to poison more packages of M&Ms on supermarket shelves to kill more M&M customers, you don't have the appropriate authorities rummage through Del Monte catsup, loaves of Wonder Bread, six packs of Budweiser and thousands of other products totally unrelated to M&Ms. Yet you politically correct holier-than-thou types who damn anyone who realizes that radical Muslims (the vast majority of them Arab) are out to kill us all would have the same efforts and resources devoted to those thousands of other non-M&M products as you would to the real problem, i.e. M&Ms. It might make the M&M manufacturer happy that at least other products are recognized (erroneously) as being potential problems and it deflects some of the adverse PR away from M&M, but it might result in more deaths from poisoned M&Ms because limited resources were diverted on wild goose chases when they could have been focused on the real problem.

Oh, please.

"Yet you politically correct holier-than-thou types who damn anyone who realizes that radical Muslims (the vast majority of them Arab) are out to kill us all"

So, are those damn "radical blacks" dealing all the coke that is the bane of society? Should we racially profile them? Are all those pesky "radical Mexicans" robbing our welfare system blind? Should we audit the Ortizs of the US a little more closely? Or make anyone of Hispanic appearance stand in a different line at the welfare office? Are those "radical drunken Irish" causing more road accidents? Maybe every one of them should have a Breathalyzer device attached to their car ignitions?

From www.m-w.com :

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

AuAAdvantage, I congratulate you. YOu have being consistently shifting from your earleir damnation of ALL Muslims, and now have repeatedly said "radical Muslims". That is where the problem is. Radicals (in this case very right wing radical fundamentalists") who espouse violence and follow thru on it are the problem. What many people have been coming down on you for is your prior equation of "radical fundamentalists" and "all Arabs" or "all Muslims". When we begin to focus our efforts on radical fundamentalists (whenther Muslim, Christian (Timothy McVeigh), Buddhist (Sri Lanka) or whatever, then we are focusing on the terrorist threat. But to focus on just "Muslims" is bad - first it unfairly represents the vast majority of Muslims who are not supportive of violence and fundamentalism, and second, it encourages people to move toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum - as we see in Iraq today. The citizens who are being randomly bombed, the men who are being randomly picked off the street and tortured in prison ARE moving toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. After all, if someone is going to arbitrarily discriminate against you, torture you, bomb you, you yourself might drift to that end of the spectrum. And my point in responding to Jacobsen's article is that she is making those errors (unconscious to her though it may be) and is perpetuating increasing racism, increasing cognitive distortion, ... and increading drift of people accused to the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.





No where, no how have I ever said all Muslims. Howver, I'm quite sure that the vast majority of the terrorism problem is caused by the radical version of that religion. Just as in my M&M example, you can't find the poisoned M&Ms by looking through the thousands of other products. Sure, you have to look to see if any of the other products have been tampered with, but you know, based on past events and the rantings of the person poisoning M&Ms (and announcing that he's going to continue doing so) that the packages of M&Ms are where you need to inspect more closely. Likewise, you have millions of domestic passengers, many thousands of whom are Muslims. You obviously need to look at them more closely because that's the primary source of the problem. Some people (like GUWonder, I'm sure) look at some extra wanding or baggage inspection as being equivalent to strip searching, torture, testing with a lie detector, etc. That's ridiculous.

Saying that the vast majority of terrorism (such as 9/11) is caused by Muslims is NOT the same as saying that the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists. Yet to the politically correct crowd which focuses on perpetrator's rights over victim's rights, the statements are equivalent.

Likewise, you have millions of domestic passengers, many thousands of whom are Muslims. You obviously need to look at them more closely because that's the primary source of the problem.

From www.m-w.com :

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

C'mon, at least have the courage to admit it!

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


I have certainly not seen anyone on this thread imply in any way that racial differences produce an inherent superiority (or inferiority) of any race.

In the 1940's, white Europeans were committing mass murder on unprecented scales in Europe (both by Nazi Germans and Russian Communists).

At the same time, Japanese Shintuists were committing similar atrocities in Asia.

If race were the primary determinant of human traits then the Russians and the Japanese would be the ones behind most international terrorism today -- after all, racial qualities do not change in a half-century.

Nor is it racial prejudice or discrimination to recognize the facts of life. Yes, if I were to contend that most Moslems are terrorists, that would be prejudice. If I were to treat Moslems differently in situations where security is not a factor, that would be discrimination.

However, to accept that while most Moslems are not terrorists but most terrorists are Moslem, is simply being realistic.

If we had a way of automatically determining which Moslems are terrorists and which are not, that would solve the problem. If we even had a way to determine which Moslems are fundamentalists and which are not, we would be a good distance down the road to solving the problem. The fact is that we don't even have a way of knowing for certain who is a Moslem and who is not -- much less a fundamentalist Moslem or a terrorist.

Therefore, profiling becomes a necessary evil. Their home country is a factor. Yes, unfortunately even skin color becomes a factor (Arab Moslems, who are most often the Moslems who are terrorists, tend not to be blue-eyed blonds). Even names become a factor.

My name is one which most Americans would think is Arabic. Additionally, a look at my passport(s) shows that I moved from America to Israel. Only someone who feels strongly about some ideological issue would do this. As 15% of the Israeli population is Moslem, my move could well be the result of my having fundamentalist Moslem beliefs.

I should be profiled. I should be subject at airports to more questioning, and perhaps a more intensive search, than the average American. I will not consider myself the subject of prejudice -- merely someone who fits (albeit loosely) into the profile of the person most likely to be a terrorist.

Nor is it racial prejudice or discrimination to recognize the facts of life. Yes, if I were to contend that most Moslems are terrorists, that would be prejudice. If I were to treat Moslems differently in situations where security is not a factor, that would be discrimination.


Nowhere in the definition of racism did I see the phrase "except where security is a factor"... ;)

Another story today about this and other terrorist probing incidents in the Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040721-101403-1508r.htm

Another story today about this and other terrorist probing incidents in the Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040721-101403-1508r.htm
Nothing much new from the Moonie's in Washington (http://www.realjournalism.net/times.htm) except this: Dawn Deeks, spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants, said there is no "central clearinghouse" for them to learn of suspicious incidents, and flight crews are not told how issues are resolved.
She said a flight attendant reported that a passenger was using a telephoto lens to take sequential photos of the cockpit door.
The passenger was stopped, and the incident, which happened two months ago, was reported to officials. But when the attendant checked back last week on the outcome, she was told her report had been lost.
Recent incidents at the Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport have also alarmed flight crews. Earlier this month, a passenger from Syria was taken into custody while carrying anti-American materials and a note suggesting he intended to commit a public suicide.
A third pilot reported watching a man of Middle Eastern descent at the same airport using binoculars to get airplane tail numbers and writing the numbers in a notebook to correspond with flight numbers.
"It's a probe. They are probing us," said a second air marshal, who confirmed that Middle Eastern men try to flush out marshals by rushing the cockpit and stopping suddenly.

How is it possible that a Middle Eastern man removed a lavatory mirror and was trying to break through the wall into a cockpit, stopped only a FAM "forcing" his way into the lav, and none of us have ever heard of such an incident before? If this actually happened, I would think the major media outlets would be all over it a la the shoe bomber episode. It wouldn't just be a minor anecdote in a (typically xenophobic) Washington Times piece, but front page headlines all over the USA. I find it hard to believe it happened.

With the exception of that lav incidnet, almost every other thing described in the story involves jumping to conclusions based on prejudice. A guy writes down tail numbers off of planes. Maybe he's just an airliners.net or other aviation afficionado who happens to have brown skin? A guy videos out the window. Maybe he's just on vacation and wants to film the takeoff because flying is exciting? A guy takes photos with a big lens of the cockpit door. Maybe he's just an art photographer shooting the _aisle_ for an interesting study on perspective? Several men seated separately "pretend" to not know one another, but then chit-chat in Arabic (oh no!) by the lavs. Maybe they couldn't get seats near each other on a full flight, and they couldn't speak good enough English to chat with their seatmastes, so they had to stand by the lavs if they wanted to avoid being bored to death on an IFE-less 4 hour NW flight?

Now if one person did all these things, _that_ would be suspicious. But the fact that a few "Middle Eastern" guys have been seen doing these things and the WashTimes concludes Middle Easterners are therefore definitely "probing" our security is prejudice in its most pure state.

That doesn't mean officials aren't right to investigate when they see these things happen. And despite my moral discomfort with profiling, I think when it comes to life/death matters, it would be stupid to prohibit profiling altogether. But I expect them to be every bit as vigilant about sketchy behavior by folks who don't look like Arabs. If I get off a plane at FLL, then get right back on the same plane to leave again on my Mileage Run, I want a FAM to ask me what the hell I'm doing.

Especially if I'm carrying the mirror from the lav. ;)

I watched her on CNN last night... Shocking how much airtime she is getting.

15 mins of fame under very poor circumstances.

Maybe she's right and ALL the federal follow up is ALL wrong. Geeez, why doesn't she take the intelligence Czar position.... I'm sure she'd lock me up for being brown, having a pilots license, photographing airplanes, and travelling in and out of the US on a regular basis... HMMMM

I'm sure she'd lock me up for being brown, having a pilots license, photographing airplanes, and travelling in and out of the US on a regular basis... HMMMM

Extra scrutiny for you!!!

You better not get out of your seat, if you know what's good for you! ;)

and suddenly, all Arabs (muslims, middle easterners, radical muslims, whatever) are M&Ms????

:confused: :confused: :confused:
:D

and oh yeah, :rolleyes:

and suddenly, all Arabs (muslims, middle easterners, radical muslims, whatever) are M&Ms????

:confused: :confused: :confused:
:D

and oh yeah, :rolleyes:



Sorry you couldn't understand my analogy. I suppose you have to be a dumbass jack-booted racist like me for the analogy to register. It's shocking to see how many racists, xenophobes and bigots there are among the flight crews, FAMs, reporters, etc. who have been publicizing these possible dry runs. You would think that maybe there was a group of Arab terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans by hijacking planes and flying them into buildings a couple of years ago. Nah, that's too far fetched to have ever happened. One would think that their fellow terrorists still alive and in training were talking about killing even more thousands of Americans. Nah, impossible! We should all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it never happened, and even if it did, it, or a similar event, could never happen again. That's the politically correct, everyone-is-equally-liable-to-commit-terrorism thing to do.

Sorry you couldn't understand my analogy. I suppose you have to be a dumbass jack-booted racist like me for the analogy to register. It's shocking to see how many racists, xenophobes and bigots there are among the flight crews, FAMs, reporters, etc. who have been publicizing these possible dry runs. You would think that maybe there was a group of Arab terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans by hijacking planes and flying them into buildings a couple of years ago. Nah, that's too far fetched to have ever happened. One would think that their fellow terrorists still alive and in training were talking about killing even more thousands of Americans. Nah, impossible! We should all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it never happened, and even if it did, it, or a similar event, could never happen again. That's the politically correct, everyone-is-equally-liable-to-commit-terrorism thing to do.

Did you happen to mean "likely" instead of "liable"? :D

I keep missing these exceptions to the definition of racism in my dictionary. Phrases like, "In the event of security concerns..." and "Because FAMs, flight crews, reporters, etc. say an exception may be granted..." are copiously absent from my dictionary's definition of racism. Perhaps you could tell us what it says in your dictionary that permits these exceptions? :confused:

My own personal definition of racism would include failing to recognize reality on the basis of race/religion/nationality. It seems to imply that people of a particular ethnic group can not be expected to meet the same standards we would expect from others.

I just did a quick search on the internet and came up with 30 terrorist incidents since 1982 which resulted in dead Americans. (This does not include Americans killed in battle or while in Israel.)

Of these:

6 were by Palestinian groups (one of these involved 2 Palestinians, a Libyan and two Germans).
7 were by Shiite Muslim groups.
1 was by the Libyan government.
5 were by Al Qaeda.
5 were by unknown terrorists.
5 were by leftist terrorist organiziations.
1 was by Timothy McVeigh.

Out of 30 terrorist acts, at least 19, and perhaps as many as 24, were committed by Moslems.

5 were committed by leftist groups.

1 was committed by a right wing nut.

Of course, this does not take into consideration the tremendous number of terrorist acts in Israel and Russia, almost all committed by Moslems.

If this heavy preponderance of terrorists had been Christians from Alabama or Jews from New York, nobody here would be making any bones about it.

Moslems are not an inferior people incapable of living up to the same standards we expect from everyone else. The simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Moslems are not terrorists is proof of that.

To ignore the fact that terrorism in the Western World is predominently a Moslem activity, to purposely close your eyes to that fact because of their ethnic group, is a very perverse form of racism.

Did you happen to mean "likely" instead of "liable"? :D


Yep, you got me on that one! It's been a long day. ;)



I keep missing these exceptions to the definition of racism in my dictionary. Phrases like, "In the event of security concerns..." and "Because FAMs, flight crews, reporters, etc. say an exception may be granted..." are copiously absent from my dictionary's definition of racism. Perhaps you could tell us what it says in your dictionary that permits these exceptions? :confused:

To me, racism would be if I said "All Arabs (or substitute Muslims) are terrorists". If I say "the majority of major terrorist attacks affecting this country in the past 20 years have been perpetrated by Muslim extremists, the vast majority of whom were Arabs" and further add: "to reduce the chances of future terrorist events, law enforcement authorities should look more closely at Muslims in general and Arab Muslims in particular because 1) that is the pool from which the vast majority of terrorists originate and 2) the Muslim extremists are threatening more terrorist events.", that's not racism, it's realism.

Put another way, if I want to catch sharks, I don't go fishing in lakes or on dry land, I go to the ocean.

My own personal definition of racism would include failing to recognize reality on the basis of race/religion/nationality. It seems to imply that people of a particular ethnic group can not be expected to meet the same standards we would expect from others.
I just did a quick search on the internet and came up with 30 terrorist incidents since 1982 which resulted in dead Americans. (This does not include Americans killed in battle or while in Israel.)
Of these:
6 were by Palestinian groups (one of these involved 2 Palestinians, a Libyan and two Germans).
7 were by Shiite Muslim groups.
1 was by the Libyan government.
5 were by Al Qaeda.
5 were by unknown terrorists.
5 were by leftist terrorist organiziations.
1 was by Timothy McVeigh.
Out of 30 terrorist acts, at least 19, and perhaps as many as 24, were committed by Moslems.
5 were committed by leftist groups.
1 was committed by a right wing nut.
Of course, this does not take into consideration the tremendous number of terrorist acts in Israel and Russia, almost all committed by Moslems.
If this heavy preponderance of terrorists had been Christians from Alabama or Jews from New York, nobody here would be making any bones about it.
Moslems are not an inferior people incapable of living up to the same standards we expect from everyone else. The simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Moslems are not terrorists is proof of that.
To ignore the fact that terrorism in the Western World is predominently a Moslem activity, to purposely close your eyes to that fact because of their ethnic group, is a very perverse form of racism.


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Excellent! However, there are two major drawbacks to your analysis.
First you are being factual and realistic which makes you a racist; and
second, the Spiffs and GUWonders of the world will hang their hat on the one act committed by Timothy McVeigh to prove that Christians are just as likely to be terrorists. :rolleyes:

Good job!

Sorry you couldn't understand my analogy. I suppose you have to be a dumbass jack-booted racist like me for the analogy to register. It's shocking to see how many racists, xenophobes and bigots there are among the flight crews, FAMs, reporters, etc. who have been publicizing these possible dry runs. You would think that maybe there was a group of Arab terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans by hijacking planes and flying them into buildings a couple of years ago. Nah, that's too far fetched to have ever happened. One would think that their fellow terrorists still alive and in training were talking about killing even more thousands of Americans. Nah, impossible! We should all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it never happened, and even if it did, it, or a similar event, could never happen again. That's the politically correct, everyone-is-equally-liable-to-commit-terrorism thing to do.

Lighten up Au, I thought I was being funny. Sorry if I offended you!

Sheesh!!!

Well, at least the examples given ALL talk only about American victims. Terrorism never happens anywhere else.

IRA - Non muslim
Aum Shinrikyo - Non muslim
Red Army Faction - Non muslim
Baader Meinhof - Non muslim
Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) - Basque Separatists - Non muslim
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) - Non muslim
Shining Path Organization (Sendero Luminoso) in Peru - Non muslim
LTTE (Sri Lanka) - Non muslim

True, most of these are past history but if these people have shown a propensity to kill, why can't they do so again? And please, no need to post a list of muslim terrorist groups. We know, they are ALL terrorists!

I have stated earlier that I do not have a strong disposition one way or the other - I admire Spiff and GUWonder for their stance but I do understand the counter-view that is presented and find myself accepting that as a part of day to day life (I am an Indian, of brown skin - therefore prime terrorist suspect material - and yes, it offends me but no, I do not have a hissy fit everytime someone looks oddly at me)

Since you choose to only consider Americans as possible terror victims, I have no problem with your characterization of radical muslims as the only possible threat

As far as I am concerned, I do not object to the profiling - I do object to the fact that it is being rationalized. I do have a problem with people challenging the principles of liberty and equality and calling me a bleeding-heart liberal when I state my principles. There are principles and there is reality - more often than not, they coincide. Sometimes, they cannot but to even attempt to explain that they NEED not, is open bigotry.

My 2 cents :D

Dovster

And what does one call the intentional killing of an American peace activist by an Israeli Army bulldozer operator?

What does one call the intentional killing of people by rockets from Israeli gunships?

(By the way, this does NOT mean I think "Israelis are terrorists", in case you have a very confused mind.)

Yes, some Palestinians do very bad things. Some Iraqis do very bad things, some Israelis do very bad things, some Americans do very bad things... so lets stop the racist focus on "this PERSON did something bad, so the whole ethnic group is bad". That's the racism. I don't know anyone saying "the terrorsts are not bad". Its just we are saying "not all Arabs, Muslims, Israelis, Americans are terrorists, so lets consentrate on the defining triats of terrorists, instead of the entire ethnic gouping.

"The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves."

I.e. - the air marshalls were worried that Annie was part of a plot to out the air marshalls, and felt she was seriously paranoid!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=339616

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Excellent! However, there are two major drawbacks to your analysis.
First you are being factual and realistic which makes you a racist; and
second, the Spiffs and GUWonders of the world will hang their hat on the one act committed by Timothy McVeigh to prove that Christians are just as likely to be terrorists. :rolleyes:

Good job!

Wrong. Here are two partially interdicted terrorist plots: the William Krar & Associates of the world. The Hale & Co. of the world. And the list goes on and on.

My own personal definition of racism would include failing to recognize reality on the basis of race/religion/nationality. It seems to imply that people of a particular ethnic group can not be expected to meet the same standards we would expect from others.

I just did a quick search on the internet and came up with 30 terrorist incidents since 1982 which resulted in dead Americans. (This does not include Americans killed in battle or while in Israel.)

Of these:

6 were by Palestinian groups (one of these involved 2 Palestinians, a Libyan and two Germans).
7 were by Shiite Muslim groups.
1 was by the Libyan government.
5 were by Al Qaeda.
5 were by unknown terrorists.
5 were by leftist terrorist organiziations.
1 was by Timothy McVeigh.

Out of 30 terrorist acts, at least 19, and perhaps as many as 24, were committed by Moslems.

5 were committed by leftist groups.

1 was committed by a right wing nut.

There have been far more than just 30 incidents were Americans were killed for political purposes. ;) Nice "selection" however.

Please list the 30 incidents you mentioned so that we can see which ones you may have missed.

Of course, this does not take into consideration the tremendous number of terrorist acts in Israel and Russia, almost all committed by Moslems.

You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in India. You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Brazil. You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Colombia. You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Zimbabwe. You forgot about the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Fiji. And the list goes on and on.

If this heavy preponderance of terrorists had been Christians from Alabama or Jews from New York, nobody here would be making any bones about it.

Yes, i would be making a bone about it and then some if some were trying to administer "special treatment" to most all Christians from Alabama and most all Jews from New York just because they happen to do a routine thing in life -- like say move!

Moslems are not an inferior people incapable of living up to the same standards we expect from everyone else. The simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Moslems are not terrorists is proof of that.

To ignore the fact that terrorism in the Western World is predominently a Moslem activity, to purposely close your eyes to that fact because of their ethnic group, is a very perverse form of racism.

What about a drug-related shootout in a neighborhood in Detroit or LA meant to intimidate or kill the family members of the police or their informants? Is that not terrorism? What about the racists who take an African-American and take him hostage until they can manage to drag him like road kill behind their vehicle? Is that not terrorism? What about someone who places pipebombs in the mail boxes in an Amish/Mennonite community and scar people? What about someone running around DC engaged in shooting practice on people? What about someone running around looking for men with turbans so that they can shoot them or put a bomb or two at their temple? Sounds like terrorism to me.

If/when the UN building in NYC gets attacked (it's more a "when" than an "if" given the amount of anti-UN hate in the world and number of arrests of people on charges independent of their hate for the UN), then we'll get another window into the reality that terrorism at home is not necessarily "foreign" nor from ethnic minority elements.

Well, at least the examples given ALL talk only about American victims. Terrorism never happens anywhere else.

Yes, because we are talking about security for American airports. If we were discussing security for Peru, Shining Path would be much more likely suspects.



Yes, some Palestinians do very bad things. Some Iraqis do very bad things, some Israelis do very bad things, some Americans do very bad things... so lets stop the racist focus on "this PERSON did something bad, so the whole ethnic group is bad". That's the racism.

I don't see how my statement that "Moslems are not an inferior people incapable of living up to the same standards we expect from everyone else. The simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Moslems are not terrorists is proof of that" equates to "the whole ethnic group is bad."

It is a logical error to say that "Most terrorists are Moslems, therefore most Moslems are terrorists."

However, it is also a logical error to say that "Most Moslems are not terrorists, although most anti-American terrorists are Moslems. Therefore, we can safely turn a blind eye to ethnicity when looking for terrorists."

You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in India. You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Brazil. You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Colombia. You forgot about all the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Zimbabwe. You forgot about the non-muslim terrorist attacks in Fiji. And the list goes on and on.

No, I did not forget about them. Just as I did not forget about the attacks by Moslems in India, Madrid, Kenya, Munich, et al. They are not pertinent to the discussion -- which centers around threats to Americans. This is the reason that I did not cite the Americans who were murdered by terrorists in Israel -- they were not targeted because they were Americans, they were killed because they were in Israel.


What about a drug-related shootout in a neighborhood in Detroit or LA meant to intimidate or kill the family members of the police or their informants? Is that not terrorism? What about the racists who take an African-American and take him hostage until they can manage to drag him like road kill behind their vehicle? Is that not terrorism? What about someone who places pipebombs in the mail boxes in an Amish/Mennonite community and scar people? What about someone running around DC engaged in shooting practice on people?

None of which have any connection to threats to American aviation. They are simply red herrings which you are using to confuse the issue. Incidentally, you might want to revise your list. As I recall, the people running around DC doing the shooting were, indeed, Moslem.

Your mention of the racist murderers who dragged a Black man around behind his car reminded me of another point I wanted to make. In the 1930's, the KKK had a tremendous revival -- not only in the South. Even a state like Illinois had tens of thousands of members. Yes, all of these people were racist, but only a tiny percentage were killers. Still, it would have been an incredibly reckless Black man who was not very careful about which KKK members he allowed near his children.

Would a Black man have reason to fear the KKK? Obviously. Should he have taken steps to protect himself? Of course. Would he have been bigoted by doing so (given the fact that the great majority of the KKK never killed anybody)? No, he would have been sensible.

Would a Black man have reason to fear the KKK? Obviously. Should he have taken steps to protect himself? Of course. Would he have been bigoted by doing so (given the fact that the great majority of the KKK never killed anybody)? No, he would have been sensible.

Interesting analogy, but there's a major breakdown.

KKK is an organization its members have to join, much more analogous to Hamas than to Islam as a whole. KKK members are all Christians, but for a black person to fear all Christians because some of them are KKK, he would likely have to protect himself from... himself (since the vast majority of African Americans are Christian).

And Hamas members, while all Muslim, don't have to be Arabs (you could have Southeast Asian, or Latino, or even African American Hamas members or sympathizers), while KKK members are always white.

So the KKK analogy is hardly a powerful argument for singling out all Muslims or all Arabs for extra scrutiny.

However, it is also a logical error to say that "Most Moslems are not terrorists, although most anti-American terrorists are Moslems. Therefore, we can safely turn a blind eye to ethnicity when looking for terrorists."


My point is that it is more productive to focus on terrorists, rather than Muslims. There are probably less than 100 terrorists ready and able to commit suicide in the US in support of their cause, not all of them Muslim or Arab. There are probably 5 million Muslims or Arabs (whichever way you want to focus on). So why not endorse measures that focus on terrorism (for example, searching for weapons, etc) than measures that focus on religion or ethnicity? Sure you can focus on ethnicity, but the negative impact of doing that (in turning people toward fundamentalist views as a result of prejudice and discrimination) is greater than the positive impact (so far, most people (not all) who have blown up airlines into buildings are Muslim). Most (though by no means all) Americans seem to want to gloss over the negative effects of prejudice and discrimination, and these effects are so unnecessary if only we were able to clear our minds of prejudice and focus on the problem - terrorism.

Several folks here and elsewhere try to use Tim McVeigh as an example of "Christian" terrorism to counter the claims (which I believe) that the vast majority of lethal anti-American terrorism is perpetrated by the group of people making up the intersection of the sets {male} {arab} {muslim} {non-american} {radical}. However, McVeigh is a poor example to use.

Tim McVeigh was hardly a Christian. He certainly did not perform his act in the name of Christianity, carry Bibles around as he committed acts of terrorism, gain his motivation from religious leaders, or go down professing (any) religious values. He declined a spiritual advisor at his execution.

Don't confuse his motivation (which was supposedly to avenge the 1994 Waco raid on a radical Branch Davidian (Christian) compound; but McVeigh's gripe was against the government, not for the folks in Waco, who probably could have been classified as "radical Christians," but who showed no tendancy to kill anyone but themselves and governmenet agents) with his faith.

Here are McVeigh's thoughts on religion from a 1996 Time Magazine interview:


TIME: Are you religious?

MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

TIME: Do you believe in God?

MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.


The Unabomber is also a poor example of a "Christian" terrorist. Though more diffuclt to find references, I don't think anyone has ever claimed he was religious or that he used religion as a motivation in his infamous manifesto.

Yes, because we are talking about security for American airports. If we were discussing security for Peru, Shining Path would be much more likely suspects.

Security at American airports or security on planes is no less or more important than security elsewhere for Americans. Victims of terrorism are victims of terrorism, be it in a building, at a store, on the road, in a theater, at an airport or on a plane. The life of an American on a plane or at an airport is no more important than the life of an American who has never left the cornfields of Iowa.

It is a logical error to say that "Most terrorists are Moslems, therefore most Moslems are terrorists."

Yes. It is invalid and unsound logic for various reasons.

However, it is also a logical error to say that "Most Moslems are not terrorists, although most anti-American terrorists are Moslems.

That statement is not only a logical error it also has factual flaws. Most anti-American terrorists are not Moslems unless you only value Americans and American life when it's on planes or at airports and the life of people since 9/10/2001.

No, I did not forget about them. Just as I did not forget about the attacks by Moslems in India, Madrid, Kenya, Munich, et al. They are not pertinent to the discussion -- which centers around threats to Americans.

But it is pertinent, very pertinent. Threats that manifest themselves abroad will manifest themselves in America in some form or another. Sinhalese Buddhist or Tamil Hindu terrorists in Sri Lanka are a threat to Americans in an era when terrorists learn from one another, use similar methods and sources, and even cross-train.

The thinking you said up above is the very kind of thinking that masked the fact that terrorists learn from other terrorists -- even if from a distance and with no direct "collaborative operational relationship" ;) -- and thus we should be aware of all global terrorist threats regardless of victim or criminal perpetrator.

This is the reason that I did not cite the Americans who were murdered by terrorists in Israel -- they were not targeted because they were Americans, they were killed because they were in Israel.

Americans not paying sufficient attention to terrorist attacks in Israel and elsewhere are part of the reason so many Americans were surprised. Being attacked by terrorists did not surprise me. The scale and efficacy of the attack did.

None of which have any connection to threats to American aviation. They are simply red herrings which you are using to confuse the issue.

The issue is securing American lives while not undermining the American way of life. Nothing more and nothing less.

Incidentally, you might want to revise your list. As I recall, the people running around DC doing the shooting were, indeed, Moslem.

Actually no. John Muhammad (perhaps); John Lee Malvo (the shooter) was not. John Muhammd was a Louis Farrakhan Nation of Islam "convert" and involved with a sub-sect of the "Fivers" or something like that. Louis Farakkhan's Nation of Islam and numerous sub-sects are (for better or worse) not considered to be "muslims" by most Middle Eastern muslims. The teachings of vast portions of the Nation of Islam don't gel well with most sunni and shia teachings. John Muhammad's religion is considered a radically different American religious product than the Islam of the Old World. Nation of Islam members often do convert to mainstream Islam, but that is not a given.

Your mention of the racist murderers who dragged a Black man around behind his car reminded me of another point I wanted to make. In the 1930's, the KKK had a tremendous revival -- not only in the South. Even a state like Illinois had tens of thousands of members. Yes, all of these people were racist, but only a tiny percentage were killers.

Yes, I am very familiar with that. It infected places as far North as SW Wisconsin (where there never were any African-Americans) and now those kooks and their grandkids are part of the Christianist militia-type groups.

Still, it would have been an incredibly reckless Black man who was not very careful about which KKK members he allowed near his children.

Ok. Parents have a right to shelter their children.

Would a Black man have reason to fear the KKK? Obviously.

Perhaps; perhaps not. If the African-Americans were the majority-community and capable of self-defense, fear would be irrational.

Should he have taken steps to protect himself? Of course.

Addressed above, but yes. However, self-protection does have its limits. Or should individuals be allowed to have their own nuclear weapon at their disposal for purposes of individual and community self-protection?

Would he have been bigoted by doing so (given the fact that the great majority of the KKK never killed anybody)? No, he would have been sensible.

If they gave "special treatment" to the majority of Caucasian individuals when and where African-Americans were the majority and/or capable of self-defense (or meaningful power projection), then it would have been bigoted and senseless.

Several folks here and elsewhere try to use Tim McVeigh as an example of "Christian" terrorism to counter the claims (which I believe) that the vast majority of lethal anti-American terrorism is perpetrated by the group of people making up the intersection of the sets {male} {arab} {muslim} {non-american} {radical}. However, McVeigh is a poor example to use.

Tim McVeigh was hardly a Christian. He certainly did not perform his act in the name of Christianity, carry Bibles around as he committed acts of terrorism, gain his motivation from religious leaders, or go down professing (any) religious values. He declined a spiritual advisor at his execution.

Don't confuse his motivation (which was supposedly to avenge the 1994 Waco raid on a radical Branch Davidian (Christian) compound; but McVeigh's gripe was against the government, not for the folks in Waco, who probably could have been classified as "radical Christians," but who showed no tendancy to kill anyone but themselves and governmenet agents) with his faith.

Here are McVeigh's thoughts on religion from a 1996 Time Magazine interview:

The Unabomber is also a poor example of a "Christian" terrorist. Though more diffuclt to find references, I don't think anyone has ever claimed he was religious or that he used religion as a motivation in his infamous manifesto.

McVeigh is not a great example of Christianists; however, McVeigh had the help of Christianists and others, but religion alone was not driving him, but it was driving him in part. McVeigh thought that rural white Christian-American way of life was under literal attack. [Similar to the thinking of Islamists who believe that their way of life is under literal attack.]

The Unabomber seemed like an anti-religion back-to-nature nut. Not a Christianist-type.

However, the KKK most certainly is a Christianist organization especially when you look at where, who and how it recruits. It's not the best example or only example of a Christianist organization, but then again Hezbollah is one type of Islamist organization that is radically different than Al-Qaeda. Both are Islamist organizations, but beyond that there are reasons they are not the same organization.

The intersection of the sets {male} {arab} {muslim} {non-american} {radical} is an applicable set for a specific set of acts of terrorism that are perpetrated by those at the intersection of {male} {arab} {muslim} {non-american} {radical}. In other words, you may be selecting a subset that lends credibility to your point but could still be logically unsound or invalid for it does not positively validate that your specified set/subset is representative of the threats to American lives.

If someone kills me, then I am dead regardless of the killer's motivation, right? If someone wants to kill me in the name of God, Country, Glory or Gold, they still want to kill me, right? In any event, I care more about my life than I care about "who" wants to kill me or "why".

One reporter has uncovered the Syrian band (yes, an actual musical band, not a band of terrorists) on the NW Flight. Pretty interesting read, it looks like things are wrapped up.


http://nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp



As to the air marshals issue, I don't understand why anyone thinks they should have taken any action here -- e.g., speaking to the Syrians, telling them to sit down, whatever. Air marshals are there to act when it is clear a terrorist incident is occurring. Boom, boom, stop it, you know. Not to act prematurely before it is clear one is on the way. Otherwise, they blow their cover.

Great article! I, too was wondering how none of the snooze organizations "investigating" this managed to figure out which band this was..
Well, I am nominally the "news director" for Stanford University's student radio station, KZSU, and I figured I'd help the Times out. There aren't that many casinos in southern California, so I had my research assistant, Mr. Google, take a look at some. An hour later I was talking to the nice folks at Sycuan Casino & Resort, near San Diego. Unlike most casinos where it's all Elvis impersonators, Paul Anka, and Linda Ronstadt — oh, wait, scratch that last one — Sycuan books the occasional "ethnic music" show, too. In August, for example, they'll have a Vietnamese night.

"Oh, do you mean Arab music?" inquired Angie, who answered Sycuan's phone. Yes, they had had an Arab act perform on July 1, an artist named Nour Mehana. Terry, Angie's supervisor at Sycuan, confirmed that he was there and that there was probably a backup band brought in, since there's no house band at Sycuan. In fractions of a second, Mr. Google found a website for Sycuan's event promoters, Anthem Artists, whose archive confirms Nour Mehana performed at Sycuan on 7/01/04.

And then I noticed something that was truly terrifying, something linking Nour Mehana to a figure of such repulsive evil that I felt a rush of prickly fear not unlike Jacobsen's: Just one week later, the same company that arranged Mehana's performance, also booked Carrot Top!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040728-111758-3815r.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040728-111758-3815r.htm

Once again the Washington Times gets it wrong. The song they referred to has no reference to suicide bombers. It has a reference to boys willing to pick up a gun and fight for what they consider their land... and if they die defending or re-taking "their land", then the song says mothers should not be weep for it was a national sacrifice.

Of course, by the standard that the Washington Times applies here many nationalistic songs, including some national anthems, are promoting "suicide bombers". :rolleyes:

The "translating" firm of the song are a neo-con tool whose translations have been too often inaccurate; that is not so surprising given that it is aimed at peddling a clearly anti-Arab message. MEMRI famously demonized Roman Catholics and other Christians just because they happened to be Arab. [In much the same way, the paranoid Annie Jacobsen demonized 14 musicians just because they happened to be Arab.]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040729-111508-5912r.htm

A second panic attack!

If I see strange goings on I don't care what race they are... I would be worried. But to be worried just because they looked arab, give me a %**#(# break. If I took the action of these clods in the news, I would have complained to the crew on 5 flights this year... ALL OF THEM were kids hanging around the aisles, galleways, toilets, EVEN though the crew told them to take their seats. So if they were Arab and doing the same things I need to worry for my life? So.... bottom line is if all the suspicous stuff going on was done by non arab looking people nobody would have noticed :confused:

A second panic attack!

If I see strange goings on I don't care what race they are... I would be worried. But to be worried just because they looked arab, give me a %**#(# break. If I took the action of these clods in the news, I would have complained to the crew on 5 flights this year... ALL OF THEM were kids hanging around the aisles, galleways, toilets, EVEN though the crew told them to take their seats. So if they were Arab and doing the same things I need to worry for my life? So.... bottom line is if all the suspicous stuff going on was done by non arab looking people nobody would have noticed :confused:

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the actions by these men were "strange" and that the fact that they were from a terrorist-supporting country makes them "more strange?" Failure to comply with the seatbelt sign is the same as disobeying flight crew instructions. (How many times have we heard, "Federal law requires that passengers comply with all lighted placards . . .")

A group of kids horsing around near the lavs is not the same as a group of adults "congregating" and chatting,
which is not the same as a group of adults who acted like they didn't know each other at boarding "congregating" in a coordinated way,
which is not the same as a group of adults who acted like they didn't know each other at boarding and all share some distinguishing common trait (be it a tattoo, a hat, looking like they're in the same family (while acting like they don't know each other), wearing the same uniform, speaking the same foreign language, and yes, gender/race/nationality) acting "congregating" in a coordinated way,
which is not the same as a group of adults who acted like they didn't know each other at boarding acting in a coordinated way and passing objects to each other on the way in/out of the lav,
which is not the same as a group of adults doing all the things above in violation of posted or spoken crewmember instructions,
which is not the same as doing all the above while traveling on an expired visa! (which granted the pax reporting the incidents didn't know about a priori)

Each of those scenarios is more suspicous than the previous. Each warrants more "observance" from the people around than the previous regardless of the race/nationality of those involved, though I only think the last two indicate law-enforcement actions.

Should Jacobson have written her story and not mentioned that the men were Syrian?

What the men did was strange, not the fact that they were Syrian. But the fact that they did what they did and the fact that they were Syrians is still noteworthy.

I don't like Jacobson's article, mainly because it promotes reactionary feel-good security measures like id-checks, SSSS, and overly-reactionary air marshalls. But I do think she witnessed something strange. Maybe a "dry run" to test how much weirdness pax/crews will put up with, or maybe just a band of Syrians who needed to use the bathroom and don't understand US flying culture, but still something strange.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the actions by these men were "strange" and that the fact that they were from a terrorist-supporting country makes them "more strange?"

I am about to do some reverse-profiling and, as you can imagine from my address, I am not a great big fan of Syria.

If these men were travelling on real Syrian passports I would not worry in the least about them being terrorists.

Since 1967, Syria has had a very strict policy of not allowing terrorist attacks by its citizens or from across its borders.

Yes. It supports terrorism. It allows various Palestinian terrorist organizations (most conspiculously the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) to organize and equip themselves in camps in Syria.

It, along with Iran, sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But it does not allow its own citizens to be involved in terrorist attacks nor does it allow the PFLP to attack Israel from Syria.

The Syrians are aware that these are "red lines" which, once crossed, could lead to a full scale war with Israel and they are not prepared to risk that. I also believe that they would not take that risk with the US -- especially after seeing Saddam Hussein's fate.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040729-111508-5912r.htm

Oh.... another drama queen on board the flight. Surprise, surprise?!?! Not!!

The only thing this indicates is that there are people who get scared when they see Bush's "muslims and brown-skinned people". It's sad that America is being infected with racist thinking yet again.

Here is NW's official response, re: Flight 327. From NWA Newswire:

Update Regarding Flight 327

Apparent customer behavior issues on Northwest Flight 327 on June 29 from Detroit to Los Angeles have been widely reported in the media.

While the flight landed normally in Los Angeles, the federal government investigated the passenger matter without taking punitive action against any passengers.

Commenting on the actions of Northwest flight deck and cabin crew, the company said, "After a thorough review, we believe that the cabin and flight crew acted appropriately and professionally."

Northwest continues to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter, but in the interest of security is not commenting further on Flight 327.

I can't quite recall seeing such a perfect example of doubletalk

While the flight landed normally in Los Angeles, the federal government investigated the passenger matter without taking punitive action against any passengers.

No punitive action? Why not say "no action"? Was there some type of non-punitive action taken against passengers? Were the Syrians, for example, put on a list of people who will not be granted visas in the future? (The government might see that as administrative action, not punitive.)

Commenting on the actions of Northwest flight deck and cabin crew, the company said, "After a thorough review, we believe that the cabin and flight crew acted appropriately and professionally."

What did the crew do that was appropriate? Did they ask that the FBI be at the airport to interview the Syrians? If there was no truly suspicious behavior, why was this appropriate? If the crew felt that the Syrians were, indeed, acting suspiciously, why didn't it abort the flight long before getting to LAX? Geography has never been my strong point, but I do seem to recall there being a few cities between Detroit and Los Angeles.

Northwest continues to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter, but in the interest of security is not commenting further on Flight 327.

While the first paragraph gives the impression that there was no problem on the flight, this last one indicates the complete opposite.

No problem? Then no need for the airline to continue "to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter". If I were to announce (falsely) that a different Northwest flight had been hijacked and taken to Cuba, the company would immediately deny it. It would not say that it is "not commenting further" in the "interest of security."

Or would it?

I can't quite recall seeing such a perfect example of doubletalk

While the flight landed normally in Los Angeles, the federal government investigated the passenger matter without taking punitive action against any passengers.

No punitive action? Why not say "no action"? Was there some type of non-punitive action taken against passengers? Were the Syrians, for example, put on a list of people who will not be granted visas in the future? (The government might see that as administrative action, not punitive.)

Commenting on the actions of Northwest flight deck and cabin crew, the company said, "After a thorough review, we believe that the cabin and flight crew acted appropriately and professionally."

What did the crew do that was appropriate? Did they ask that the FBI be at the airport to interview the Syrians? If there was no truly suspicious behavior, why was this appropriate? If the crew felt that the Syrians were, indeed, acting suspiciously, why didn't it abort the flight long before getting to LAX? Geography has never been my strong point, but I do seem to recall there being a few cities between Detroit and Los Angeles.

Northwest continues to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter, but in the interest of security is not commenting further on Flight 327.

While the first paragraph gives the impression that there was no problem on the flight, this last one indicates the complete opposite.

No problem? Then no need for the airline to continue "to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter". If I were to announce (falsely) that a different Northwest flight had been hijacked and taken to Cuba, the company would immediately deny it. It would not say that it is "not commenting further" in the "interest of security."

Or would it?

I agree that this is doubletalk/PR spin of sorts. There was not much behavior that could be considered suspicious except for the alleged rushing to the restroom in groups minutes before landing (if that is what really happened). [Eye witness reports are unreliable (generally speaking) and the more they have that say they are witnesses, the less reliable the reports will be.]

I presume NW wants to appear to be investigating. Congress and some federal agencies are interested in following up and I would not be surprised if (on the request of our government) the Syrian government is trying to pull records about these guys to ascertain if there are any direct connections to criminal types.

I can't quite recall seeing such a perfect example of doubletalk

While the flight landed normally in Los Angeles, the federal government investigated the passenger matter without taking punitive action against any passengers.

No punitive action? Why not say "no action"? Was there some type of non-punitive action taken against passengers? Were the Syrians, for example, put on a list of people who will not be granted visas in the future? (The government might see that as administrative action, not punitive.)

Commenting on the actions of Northwest flight deck and cabin crew, the company said, "After a thorough review, we believe that the cabin and flight crew acted appropriately and professionally."

What did the crew do that was appropriate? Did they ask that the FBI be at the airport to interview the Syrians? If there was no truly suspicious behavior, why was this appropriate? If the crew felt that the Syrians were, indeed, acting suspiciously, why didn't it abort the flight long before getting to LAX? Geography has never been my strong point, but I do seem to recall there being a few cities between Detroit and Los Angeles.

Northwest continues to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter, but in the interest of security is not commenting further on Flight 327.

While the first paragraph gives the impression that there was no problem on the flight, this last one indicates the complete opposite.

No problem? Then no need for the airline to continue "to cooperate with federal authorities on the matter". If I were to announce (falsely) that a different Northwest flight had been hijacked and taken to Cuba, the company would immediately deny it. It would not say that it is "not commenting further" in the "interest of security."

Or would it?

^ This whole thing is screwy, especially the government double-speak. But people "in the know" wouldn't want to portray this sort of vulnerability as being possible outside some crazy lady(ies)' mind, would they?

Had the flight 93 guys taken such second-guesses about what was happening around them, history might have been dramatically different.

MSNBC is promoting that they will have other passengers from the flight on Scarborough Country 10 PM EDT, 7 PM PDT on Monday 8/2.

MSNBC is promoting that they will have other passengers from the flight on Scarborough Country 10 PM EDT, 7 PM PDT on Monday 8/2.

CalItalian, for those of us who can't get MSNBC would it be possible for you to give a brief recap of what is said there?

(Or, even better considering your name -- come to the Venice Meet and tell us there.)

CalItalian, for those of us who can't get MSNBC would it be possible for you to give a brief recap of what is said there?

(Or, even better considering your name -- come to the Venice Meet and tell us there.)

Is the transcript good enough? On www.msnbc.com, one can get the transcript. I will post a link after the show uploads the transcript.

Transcripts from MSNBC headlining prime time shows (for last week):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

Next week's pending next week. :D

Edit: Here's the August 2nd transcript that Dovster can use:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5591031/

Of course, the Washington Times and Annie-I-forgot-my-medication-Jacobsen are still peddling a myth and hysteria (yet again).

JACOBSEN: Well, I'm hoping they're going to come on and tell you.

But you can read about it in my next article.

Sounds like Annie Jacobsen is trying to "sell" herself. ;)

Oh my, what's this? A paranoid bigot's been exposed?

"What happened was, they were already standing up in the aisle before the seat belt signs became illuminated," said Dave Adams, a spokesman for the agency, which represents air marshals who travel undercover on airplanes.

"The flight attendants asked them to sit down and the men respected the orders and sat in their seats. Two gentlemen asked why they had to, and a flight attendant told them 'Because, so please take your seats.' And they obeyed," he said.

The new information, he added, came from "subsequent interviews of flight attendants on this matter by our personnel."

So there was absolutely no sudden move by the men on final approach?

"None," Mr. Adams said.

The article in full is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/business/03road.html

From the NYT:

"What happened was, they were already standing up in the aisle before the seat belt signs became illuminated," said Dave Adams, a spokesman for the agency, which represents air marshals who travel undercover on airplanes.

"The flight attendants asked them to sit down and the men respected the orders and sat in their seats. Two gentlemen asked why they had to, and a flight attendant told them 'Because, so please take your seats.' And they obeyed," he said.

The new information, he added, came from "subsequent interviews of flight attendants on this matter by our personnel."

So there was absolutely no sudden move by the men on final approach?

"None," Mr. Adams said.


While I still dislike a lot of Jacobson's comments and suggestions (i.e., more feel-good SSSSearches and SSSSecurity), it does seem that the Marshal Service (and other govt. entities) are doing everything possible to downplay this incident, especially now that it has been revealed that these Syrian men were out of visa-status, illegally in the country, and should have been deported yet the LAX agents that "questioned at length" the Syrians and supposedly checked them against watch lists failed to pick up on that little detail. A less-cynical but still likely reason for downplaying it is that they don't want to draw attention to the marshals or create a string of false-alarm similar events.

So I take information that the govt. releases and says was gleaned from "subsequent interviews" with a grain of salt. They have as much of an agenda (maybe more) than Jacobson.

Oh my, what's this? A paranoid bigot's been exposed?



The article in full is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/business/03road.html

Quite. As if there was any doubt.

Another interesting point mentioned - isn't a FAM's ability to see what is happening and to react actually hindered by the fact that they travel up front in F and don't have most of the cabin in their line of sight (without turning around)?

Another interesting point mentioned - isn't a FAM's ability to see what is happening and to react actually hindered by the fact that they travel up front in F and don't have most of the cabin in their line of sight (without turning around)?

Not necessarily. There are advantages, as you stated, of being in the back of the plane but also of being near the cockpit (where the action is likely to happen).

What hinders the FAMs is their being so easily identified by early boarding, standardized dress, and always sitting in an aisle seat in F/C.

Good ol' Annie Jacobsen (http://swamp.web1000.com/sfx/bnb/liar.wav)

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=728

... these Syrian men were out of visa-status, illegally in the country, and should have been deported yet the LAX agents that "questioned at length" the Syrians and supposedly checked them against watch lists failed to pick up on that little detail.

Sorry, it has not yet been confirmed that they were illegally in the country. ;)

A single-entry used visa does not necessarily indicate being out of visa-status or illegally in the country.

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=728

Steve Emerson is very often wrong (especially with the "facts"). ;)

Apparently Annie Jacobsen's ability to generate any further hysteria is going to be winding down... but she certainly wants to sell herself with a few more stories. ;)

She did it on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on August 2nd and the self-promotion is not going to come to an end anytime soon. Perhaps Annie-Jacobsen should look at getting a window in Amsterdam. ;)

I would have never thought I would agree with the words of the Syrian Ambassador to Washington, DC, but I have to admit to agreeing with his words calling Annie Jacobsen a "paranoid racist".

Requests for Annie Jacobsen to supply evidence of her trip to India, which was mentioned in her first story, have apparently gone unheeded.

Request for Annie Jacobsen to supply her medical (and mental) history have apparently gone unheeded.

Annie Jacobsen apparently is looking for a free trip to Washington for her and her husband. ;)

[By the way, Annie Jacobsen is a fan of Daniel Pipes, the man who talks about "brown people" and "their smells". ;)]

What is this? No less than 2 of the Syrian musicians on board NW 327 were Christian? Oh so much for the "Muslim terrorist" story. ;)

What is this? At least 14% of the Syrian musicians were not even ethnic Arabs. Oh... so much for the "Arab terrorist" story. [2 are ethnic Armenians (and 2 or may be Kurds).]

[I can't wait until will hear the obsessed racist-profiling mob saying that "terrorists come in all shapes and sizes", right? ;) ]

"The 14 Syrians on Northwest Airlines flight 327...To the dismay of many, it's the story that won't go away. The fact that a group of Syrian men acted in a way that terrified some passengers (me and my husband) and (my stupid, racist actions) caused a squad of federal officials to be called out to meet the plane upon landing is of interest to anyone who flies the friendly skies. And (because I am too arrogant to apologize and still a racist bereft of any journalistic integrity) that is why this story won't just go away."

I've been following this and related threads, withholding comment, but I think there is likely much more to the story and no one will ever know exactly what happened.

As far as her behavior, I see people who are scared of flying on a regular basis and understand how some people can overreact. In fact, I've been on at least one recent flight where my seatmate introduced himself and said he was scared.

Let's face it, with the government announcing all these "threats", there's a lot of scared, nerotic people out there. It's quite possible Jacobson is one of them.

She could quite well be a racist bigot as it seems; she could quite have been one of the scared, nerotic, individuals out there; she may very well have seen suspisious activity, which was also being watched by the flight crew, and created a scene out of it, which in the end could be more dangerous if she or her husband "pushed things". It could be quite possible things happened back in Y that tha FAM's didn't see. I have read the account of another passenger who did not want to be identified who did confirm this type of activity.

FWIW, Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) is on TV right now (Faux News, fair and balanced between the right and far right) talking about how we must endure inconviniences at airports (er, window dressing), remove shoes now, and more of less talking about terrorism which is what causes people to become scared neorotic when security/terror/safety is discussed on the news on an hourly basis, 365 days a year.

In closing, the behavior of these Syrian passengers could very well be innocent, but if what she outlines was done by groups of caucasion middle aged men, or female, would there be the same outcry? While it could arouse some suspicsion, I doubt it would go as far as this did.

If Jacobson a bigot? It certainly sounds that way. Could the US Govt, FAM service, etc., be covering up and playing down the incident for the sake of the public? Absolutely. Even if Jacobson wasn't on the flight, with the general overview and account from this second passenger, it sounds like this aircraft still may have been met by officials... just speculation on my part, but we can't believe everything we see in the press & we can't believe every word the govt tells us. As such, no one (publicly) will ever know what realy happen, but I conclude myself that Jacobson went too far.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

What is this? At least 14% of the Syrian musicians were not even ethnic Arabs. Oh... so much for the "Arab terrorist" story. [2 are ethnic Armenians (and 2 or may be Kurds).]

[I can't wait until will hear the obsessed racist-profiling mob saying that "terrorists come in all shapes and sizes", right? ;) ]

Gee, you wonder what the world is coming to when anti-profiling people suddenly start discounting the possibility of terrorism because the suspects don't meet the racial and religious profiles! :) :) :)

Gee, you wonder what the world is coming to when anti-profiling people suddenly start discounting the possibility of terrorism because the suspects don't meet the racial and religious profiles! :) :) :)

I did not discount the "possibility" of terrorism because the "suspects" -- read: innocent passengers not found to be suspicious by US law enforcement -- do or do not fit some hogwash "racial" and "religious" profiles selected carefully by bigots who think themselves better than the "other". I was just highlighting the idiocy of the "profile" when 99% of people doing the "profiling" can't separate their arse from their brains.

Dovster, you know the hysteria resonates merely because these people are perceived by some to be Arabs and/or to be Muslims. Of course, Annie Jacobsen and the like perceived incorrectly.

If we used the Annie Jacobsen standard of "witnessing" criminal activity to convict persons, we would have at least 40 million Americans in the prison system.

If we used the Annie Jacobsen standard of "witnessing" criminal activity to convict persons, we would have at least 40 million Americans in the prison system.Yes, but I bet that the rest would say that they feel "safer" :td:

Yes, but I bet that the rest would say that they feel "safer" :td:

You're right... but since my safety is paramount, everyone else will be in chains; as a result, I can wander around freely while maintaining control of all keys and weapons to secure things that me, myself and I hold dear. ;)

The legendary internet bigot Annie Jacobsen found a "girlie man" to come on Scarface Country on MSNBC on Thursday August 5, 2004 10.35 EST and to espouse his "concern" too in light of his being an "expert" on non-suspicious flight behavior pre-9/11.

Jacobsen had nothing of substance to add. Mark _____ (aka "girlie man" who wishes to be a FAM) had little to add other than confirm that he had concerns and flew before 9/11 and after 9/11.

The FAM spokesman confirmed that these men were checked out and cleared thoroughly.

Mr. Mark ______ said that he found their behavior of standing by the lavatories along with other passengers disconcerting.

Annie Jacobsen confirmed that the men who scared her did not congregate by the first class lavatory at any point in time. ;) [She did so reluctantly.] They hung out like other passengers by the bathrooms in coach waiting in line and getting the blood in their legs flowing. ;)

Annie Jacobsen should join Ann Coulter with the Kook Kontributors for the KKK Monthly.