It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6 Muslim Imams removed from flight.

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   


Its not impossible thou is it ?


There are few things in life that are strictly impossible. If you don't use some common sense and play the odds, you won't last long.

It's possible that we could all be wiped off the face of the earth by a rash of precision lightning strikes, but spending BILLIONS of dollars to prevent that eventuality rather than spending money preventing more likely scenarios is foolish. It's doubly foolish to spend all that money while managing to avoid all the logical, cost-effective solutions to the problem, some of which I've already mentioned.



How about poisoning every major water supply in the country, creating wild fires that span several states .... got to use your imagination if we want to be prepared.


We have finite resources. If we just worked off your imagination we would run out of money before we reached the end of the 'A's' in the list of things that could happen.

The government of this country is tasked with efficiently protecting the citizenry.

That means analyzing risks and allocating resources accordingly. There's no argument here, it's just what you do if you want to survive. You don't step in front of buses to avoid wasps if you want to grow old.



You really dont think you are going to be able to stop fat lazy people from eating to much junk and get them to excercise do you ?


No, and I wouldn't try. But we can adopt a budget that prioritizes expenditures based on the common need instead of one attuned to the needs of the revolving door corporo-government troglodytes and their soulless masters.





Perhaps, only if you could see what would happen if you didnt or did make x decision huh ?


That's precisely my point! Why spend exhorbitant amounts of money guarding against a statistically irrelevant threat, when that money could be spent lowering the number of preventable deaths from common, identifiable factors? And if we're going to spend money 'protecting our nation from terrorists' wouldn't it make sense to do some common sense things, like protecting our water supply with something more than rusty chain-link fences and aluminum signs?

This is what I'm talking about...

Terrorism is a threat, there's no question. We face a whole host of threats, and we have to be reasonable enough to identify them in terms of relative severity, and act accordingly. We can't do that if we're all running around like headless chickens, scared to death of our own shadow or anything remotely resembling a person from the ME.

People are so damn afraid, they're not thinking logically.

I don't delude myself into thinking that the government can make people eat right or make better decisions, but the government can, and ought to, spend our money in efficient, responsible ways, and instead of filling everyone up to bursting with mindless, gibbering terror, they could at least attempt to put things into perspective.



Try telling that to the people whom perished Sept 11


Ugh...

Where were you? I was in Manhattan. I ended that day covered in grey dust, with the taste of death and ashes stuck to the back of my throat.

That fact doesn't prevent me from thinking objectively about the situation, and the myriad threats that face us everyday. We have to be rational and logical if we're to have a hope in Hell of staying above the rising waters. Fear-mongering and panic-driven recklessness are sure to sink us.

You know what makes a bad situation worse? FREAKING OUT ABOUT IT to such an extent that it clouds your good judgement.




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
The problem is, that us Westerners are getting increasingly pissed about is Muslims always screaming oh im a poor Muslim you racists discriminate against me,



The problem is , that us muslims are getting increasingly pissed about is westerners always screaming oh he an arab looking muslim terrorist and we shud discriminate against all of them to stay on the safe side.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
this Airline had every right and Every resposibility to Question these people,



and they did, before boarding. But after some paranoid passenger passes a note and then airline kicks them off without solid reason or proof. Thats absurd.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
and until an investigation is completed no one can make a definitive comment on this case can they ??



But you seem to already have made up your mind that these people are guilty. What happened to innocent until proven guilty???


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
The truth is Muslims in the West have been granted concessions left right and centre,



Name some. I dont recall any special concessions which only muslims get and not others.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
if we visit the Middle East we get nothing like these levels of concessions.



Have u ever visited?? I know what ur reply is gonna be so let me say it now. Those laws are for everyone, not just westerners. Even muslims have to follow em.
The imams DID NOT break any law.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Im just tired of the Im a poor Muslim line is all.



Im just tired of the Im a poor westerner scared of those damn muslims line is all.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I have never said nor have i ever heard a Westerner say that all Muslims are Terrorists, ever,



But you do treat all of them like one


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
but i have heard that virtually all terrorists are Muslims, havnt found much eveidence to deny that either.



Virtually, huh? U have heard? from where? This is a deeper issue which i cant discuss at the moment. You guys consider anyone against US gov. a terrorist regardless. Anyway, thats off topic so i wont discuss that.
I can pass a similar statement that virtually all westerners are discriminating against muslims. It wud be absurd to pass a statement like that.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I hope our 2 cultures can grow to become Friends, but this seed of suspicion runs deep on both sides now.



Ya, kick them off planes and expect them to love you and smile at you for it. Good job.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Biggest thing Muslims need to accept when moving to the west is that Church and State will ALWAYS remain seperate, if you cant accept that you cant realisticly expect to fit into western culture.


Biggest thing westerners need to accept is that they are not the only country in the world. They are not the only culture. They need to understand others too and not just look at every arab with suspicious eyes. Nothing wrong with looking but dont pass your own judgement without proof.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluByWho
Common sense would tell me that you don't hold a big prayer session in an airport terminal of a country in which some individuals who practice your faith killed 3000+ people. Maybe I'm wrong.


Considering that AMERICA was originated because the pilgrims wanted religious tolerance... I'd say you are wrong.
However, considering that those same pilgrims slaughtered native americans to steal their land, arguably such hypocrisy shows the true intent - which is not religious tolerance.

I refuse to damn an entire faith based on the fundamentalists. If that was the case, then every religion would be damned -- because of the actions of a few fundamentalist individuals!



How exactly are you supposed to distinguish between a radical islamist and a peaceful one? Wait til your in 1000 pieces? It's called better safe than sorry. Did they deserve to get back on the plane? Absolutely, but the plane isn't going to wait around for them to be re screened because they chose to make themselves look suspect.


Yes, how does anyone decide whether someone is innocent or guilty before a crime is even commited???

Why are we automatically assuming guilt? Because of looks?
Is that why I get followed in stores -- because I *look* like I'm going to steal something?


Appearances do not determine inner character!!!

I flew over the summer, in the same plane with 3 'muslim looking' people. I kept waiting for someone to call them out as possible terrorists because I would have stood up for them -- me, a white girl. (And for the record: I accept that the plane I flew in could have blown up -- probably because of a single malfunctioning piece of equipment. That's the chance we are willing to take in flying... the more complex a machine, the more chances for something to go wrong.)


Assuming automatic guilt based solely on appearances because of *one* person's lack of comfort???

Indeed, Spock's words come back again: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".. ONE man thought them suspicious -- no one else? And yet they were kicked off a plane because of ONE man's 'need' for security?

If he was *that* uncomfortable, then he should have gotten up and left as his own personal boycott.

The height of this suspicion is getting ridiculous, and shows our true intents and ignorance. Seriously.

I say we either practice what we preach, or change the sermon.
This 'do as I say, not as I do' crap is getting old...

[edit on 26-11-2006 by Diseria]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded


The problem is , that us muslims are getting increasingly pissed about is westerners always screaming oh he an arab looking muslim terrorist and we shud discriminate against all of them to stay on the safe side.


LMAO thats Hilarious, you just did what i said we are Pissed about! nice work!





Im just tired of the Im a poor westerner scared of those damn muslims line is all.


I think the word your looking for is Disguisted not scared.




But you seem to already have made up your mind that these people are guilty. What happened to innocent until proven guilty???


It may seem that way to you but no i havnt, but it seems to me that youve decided they are completely innocent.



Ya, kick them off planes and expect them to love you and smile at you for it. Good job.


LOL now thats why the ME is the # hole it is now, An innability to forgive mistakes or wrongdoings that has accelerated into a conflict spanning decades and will never end.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher

Originally posted by half_minded
Im just tired of the Im a poor westerner scared of those damn muslims line is all.


I think the word your looking for is Disguisted not scared.


No, I think scared is appropriate. They might be disgusted by the actions taken, but it boils down to people being scared...

If the man from the article was disgusted, then he would have openly said something to the imams, expressing his disgust.
Instead, he had them kicked off the plane -- because he was *scared*.






But you seem to already have made up your mind that these people are guilty. What happened to innocent until proven guilty???


It may seem that way to you but no i havnt, but it seems to me that youve decided they are completely innocent.


This I will admit quite readily. I'm much more willing to be proved wrong, a person proving themselves guilty, rather than waiting for them to prove their innocence.

If I view someone as guilty, it's going to take *a lot* for them to persuade me otherwise -- and I'll always have some tinge of suspicion towards them, no matter what.

Thus, I see it as more beneficial to give people the benefit of the doubt.




Ya, kick them off planes and expect them to love you and smile at you for it. Good job.


LOL now thats why the ME is the # hole it is now, An innability to forgive mistakes or wrongdoings that has accelerated into a conflict spanning decades and will never end.


Right, and because of this in-ability to forgive mistakes/wrong-doings, people are making sure that the conflict will never end.

We must be wiliing to allow people to change! If not, we are truly damning ourselves!

[edit on 26-11-2006 by Diseria]

[edit on 26-11-2006 by Diseria]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
So why were they not stopped by authorities in the terminal itself? If this is such a hard and fast rule in airports then why werent they stopped then?


Boy you sure must be young or you would know the answer to that.

The era I am talking about, (Late 60s early 70s) had no airport security check points as we know them today, everyone could go out on the concourses.

Many went out just to watch planes take off and land from airport observation points on the concourses. They also could meet or take people as they arrived/departed at the gate.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by half_minded
So why were they not stopped by authorities in the terminal itself? If this is such a hard and fast rule in airports then why werent they stopped then?


Boy you sure must be young or you would know the answer to that.

The era I am talking about, (Late 60s early 70s) had no airport security check points as we know them today, everyone could go out on the concourses.

Many went out just to watch planes take off and land from airport observation points on the concourses. They also could meet or take people as they arrived/departed at the gate.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point (connection) you're trying to make.

Obviously, people were allowed on the concourses/terminals, and now-a-days are not. I do not see the point in debating the security measures of 40+ years ago.

There are more security peeps in airports in general -- and if these people had been thought a threat, then they should have been stopped before they got on the plane. Obviously, they were not thought a treat by security people, and successfully made it through the (multiple) security checks, so they were let on. It wasn't until they got on the plane with this man that they were suddenly considered a (possible) threat...

[edit on 26-11-2006 by Diseria]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
defcon

Two points that need to be made.

1.) Prayer is not a meeting, it's a personal thing. The fact that they happened to be praying together doesn't make it a meeting, any more than three men using side-by-side urinals constitutes a meeting.

2.) The first ammendment states that no law shall be held constitutional that abridges the right to free speech. Punishing speech is one thing, that's legal. But you can't stop the speech. That's my understanding of it. So, that law ought to be binned for being unconstitutional.



SCOTUS already did rule on the consitutional issues of the law in NY Port Authority v. ISKCON and ISKCON, Inc. v Walter Lee






On June 26, 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of ISKCON, Inc. versus Walter Lee 56 . The International Society for Krishna Consciousness brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a ban on solicitation at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 57 . They alleged that the regulation deprived them of their First Amendment rights 58 .

The Supreme Court decided that an airport terminal operated by a public authority is a nonpublic forum, and thus a solicitation ban need only satisfy a reasonableness standard 59 . The Court found that the Port Authority's ban on solicitation was reasonable because solicitation may have a disruptive effect on business 60 .

The Supreme Court's decision dealt a major blow to the financial operations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness since their primary financial base was literature distribution and solicitation in shopping malls, airports, and national parks 61 .

Hare Krishnas and ISCKON


Hare Krishnas follwers casued the law to be written in the first place during the late 60s or early 70s (not sure of exact date). As you can see airports as well as other places were ruled a nonpublic forum.

Krishnas were a extremely radical group group that both prayed and tried to sell their wares/books, iterature and flowers, well that was until SCOTUS ruled they were non-public forums. Anyone interested can read about them on Wiki. Link provided below.

Hare Krishnas

[edit on 11/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
[/quote[

Had you followed the thread from the start you could have seen what lead up to that answer.

[quote[
Obviously, they were not thought a treat by security people, and successfully made it through the (multiple) security checks, so they were let on. It wasn't until they got on the plane with this man that they were suddenly considered a (possible) threat...


Well they were not making a spectacle of them selves until they reached the gate and plane either.

The proverbial you know what is going to hit the fan real quick on this issue, 6 others demonstrated at SEATAC on Friday and plan on holding further protests in DC on Monday

See my citation above where SCOTUS ruled that Airports and malls are nonpublic forums

Muslims protest with prayer at Sea-Tac



[edit on 11/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Krishnas were a extremely radical group group that both prayed and tried to sell their wares/books, iterature and flowers, well that was until SCOTUS ruled they were non-public forums. Anyone interested can read about them on Wiki. Link provided below.

Hare Krishnas

[edit on 11/26/2006 by shots]


Great history lesson but doesnt help prove your point. What were the imams selling? What were they preaching? All they were doing is fulfilling their own prayer without bothering anyone. Come up with something better if you wanna argue sensibly.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
It may seem that way to you but no i havnt, but it seems to me that youve decided they are completely innocent.


Obviously. You cant call a person guilty unless proven and the funny thing is, the imams were proven to be innocent and yet people are here arguing that they were a grave threat. Bravo.


Originally posted by shots
Well they were not making a spectacle of them selves until they reached the gate and plane either.


Oh im sorry, I thought looking arab was OK. I didnt know people could be making a spectacle by wearing their traditional dress.

You know what. You should strip all the diplomats from all countries when they arrive at your airport and make them wear a suit and tie and hand them a briefcase

[edit on 26-11-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
[edit on 26-11-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
lol this thread still going
to put the whole thing simply, we all know it was not fair on the INNOCENT muslims
that tried to board the plane ok?
but precautions need to be taken even if viewed extreme
when mad muslims stop blowing things up, or should i say themselves, maybe then they wont get kicked off planes

[edit on 26-11-2006 by PlayeR87]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Shots, were the imams selling anything?

I think we can all agree that a business ought to have the final say over who can and cannot solicit on their premises. But private prayers are in a whole different league, as far as I'm concerned.

And anyway, so the airport is not a public forum, does that relegate the 1st ammendment to the rubbish bin? Not as far as I can tell. It just removes the protections granted to speakers in a public forum.

You still have the RIGHT to speak your mind in an airport - but you can be punished for it by the airline (and of course, by the justice system if you cause danger with your speech).

There's no need for a law that prohibits speech when the speech can be punished at the discretion of the business owner (by way of refusing service, removing them from the premises, civil actions or criminal complaints).

As far as I know any law that curtails speech (except through threat of punishment, strangely enough) is unconstitutional. You can be punished for what you say, but that doesn't strip you of your rights to say your bit.

What danger did these men pose? And they weren't soliciting, right?

So what's the beef? It made the passengers nervous. The airline can say "leave my establishment, you're negatively affecting my business" - and they're within their rights for the same reason the manager of a diner can ask you to leave if you won't stop screamin' "Butt Weasel!" at the top of your lungs.

Lemme say it again, I support the airline's right to run its business as it pleases. I just think it's unethical, and should be punished by the consumers. And to be clear I think the imams were well within their rights praying in an airport. Just because they can be ejected for that behavior (by a business) doesn't give the local legislators the right to ignore the first ammendment.

That notion of public vs. private domain has more to do with religious demonstrations, leafletting, and expression as it relates to outreach work - like the NOI does on street corners in NY, or used to anyway. They couldn't do that in an airport, for obvious reasons.

But I fail to see how a handful of men saying prayers fall under that umbrella.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Shots, were the imams selling anything?


No, neither were the Hare Krishnas at times, all they did was stand there and pray which disrupted airport activities.

I fully understand your points and I tend to agree with you. I simply posted what might and I say "might be a precident." If and when this gets to the courts I have no idea how they would rule.

I agree with private prayer but when I say private I mean just that, which is not what they did. They made a spectacle by gathering into a group the same as Hare Krishnas did.

That is the main point I am trying to make.

--------

half_minded I deliberately by passed replying to your nonsense and opted to respond to WyrdeOne because his intelligent post addressed what you asked






[edit on 11/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
half_minded I deliberately by passed replying to your nosense and opted to respond to Wyde since it addressed what you asked


[edit on 11/26/2006 by shots]


You bypassed me by calling my name out and calling my arguments nonsense???
I can safely call u stupid and choose to ignore u henceforth.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Just wanted to add some extra info that may or may not be useful

In arabic, Imam is considered the guy who conducts the daily prayer in the mosque. The guy in the front who everyone else in the back follows during the main prayer (like a priest). There is a different guy for azaan (the call out before prayer), and different guy for conducting prayer. That guy is called an Imam.

Although most muslims cudnt care less and wudnt pray during a journey. I know I dont. But an Imam is someone I would expect never to miss a prayer. No matter what place as long as its the time for prayer.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Folks, please stick to the subject and keep a lid on the personal attacks and insults.

Thank you.







[edit on 2006-11-26 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
seriously what is the big deal? So a few stupid indians got kicked off a plane..so what? They should have known something would happen if they kept talkin that muslim stuff in front of everyone.

they're not the 1st people to get kicked off a flight, and they won't be the last. all types of people get kicked or denied flight every day, DEAL WITH IT.

oh what are we supposed to feel bad for them becuase their beliefs were intruded on? or cause they were supposedly discriminated against? big deal, nobody can do everything they want in this country.

who cares, seriously.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
*bites tongue* .... *takes a breath* ....
I'm going to have to apologize in advance because this post seriously ticked me off. I hope I removed all bad language and personal insults...




Originally posted by Spawwwn
seriously what is the big deal? So a few stupid indians got kicked off a plane..so what? They should have known something would happen if they kept talkin that muslim stuff in front of everyone.


You are right, people get kicked off for, seemingly, anything and everything now-a-days.

The 'big deal' that we are trying to discuss is what, exactly, people get kicked off for, and whether or not such actions were morally & logically correct.

By your almost-quasi-logic, I could get a group of Christians kicked off a plane for 'talkin that god/jesus stuff in front of everyone'...

The fact that I *could* do this does not make it *RIGHT*. That is the 'big deal'.




they're not the 1st people to get kicked off a flight, and they won't be the last. all types of people get kicked or denied flight every day, DEAL WITH IT.


And if given a sensible and logical reason for them having been kicked off, I might agree with you. But as it stands, their being kicked off the plane *and* detained was illogical and completely based on irrational fear.

..........the whole point of this discussion *is* to deal with it -- to figure out HOW to deal with it in future situations! DUH!



oh what are we supposed to feel bad for them becuase their beliefs were intruded on? or cause they were supposedly discriminated against? big deal, nobody can do everything they want in this country. who cares, seriously.




Are we supposed to feel bad for you if something illogical, uncivil and completely disrespectful happens to you?

If your personal rights are infringed upon -- no one should give a hoot because 'nobody can do everything they want'????

Isn't that just slightly illogical? Nevermind the obvious lack of compassion for another human being...

Seriously, grow up.



Your inhumane apathy leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Excuse me while I go brush my teeth...



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
diseria: yeah i know i seem harsh....but it's true, it's not a big deal AT ALL. and it was a good decision, no matter how controversial it was.

think of it this way, lets say a radical christian group was praying, but sayin things like "bless us, don't let us burn with the gays and blacks if the plane goes down" or something like that. think they wouldn't get kicked off the plane?

or what about a guy who was really drunk, and loud, and obnoxious? even if he wasn't violent, what if he was talking about socially inappropriate stuff like overly sexual stuff..or even insulting people, as drunks sometimes do.

so your saying that those people shouldn't get kicked off the plane either? because to me...the muslims, and those 2 examples i mentioned are one in the same.

The point is that you can't speak certain ways in public, at certain times because you will scare people, and it's not appropriate. flying is a scary thing...which has become even scarier since 911.

So even if it's not right, you have to look at the minority vs the majority. The majority of passengears aren't gonna want to ride with a racist christian group, or an offensive and loud disruptive drunk.

And they won't want to ride with some muslims who are speaking in a language they can't understand, about to board a vehicle that has some very bad memories attached to it.

I've said it before..islamic states in the world are still to unstable, and not civilized enough to gain a full trust especially from americans (whom a group of muslims attacked). It's not americans fault that places like iran and iraq are full of radical musim violence..but it is a fact that they ARE filled with that type of violence.

That's why i said you can't fully trust a religion, that is producing those kinds of violent ideals...it's sad, but unfortunatley it's a fact that muslims in this country have to accept.

They have to understand that while americans have nothing against their religion per say...we are gonna be very watchful of any muslims because of the violence and whacko ideals that are associated with their religion.

Look around the world...it's not just a small group of scattered muslim radicals here and there...there is a MASSIVE number of them, spread out through many countries, that seriously belive in that crazy terrorist martyr stuff.

So really it's not the airlines, or america fault, it's the crazy radical muslims that are at fault. they should be the ones blamed, especially by other muslims...because those radical muslims are making life harder for regular muslims here in america.

i'm all for people doing what they wanna do, but in a public area you can't expect to do ANYTHING you want. And i'm sorry but if people were getting scared, or offended by these muslims, then they should have been removed.

keep in mind this is america, not a muslim country..so they will have to abide by american standards...as screwed up, or unfair as they may be.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join