Caught on Video! MUSLIM WOMAN at LAX Trashes Gays, Threatens to Bomb America

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Duh, no sh#t. It's an analogy. She seemed pretty riled up, possibly motivated.

I'm pretty riled up at my governments foreign policy, complain about it a lot, too.

I'm not going to go to an airport or crowded theatre and scare people though. Im not that kind of agitator.

a reply to: luthier

I'm actually not sure after having watched the whole video. I thought she made a threat at the counter... I think she's just trolled the guy taking the video and he went and told the cops what she said.

a reply to: luthier

I don't think you understand the subtlety of the law. For one,mspecifically regarding the debate she had with the man, these aren't personal threats. Two, she isn't inciting anger. There is no breach of peace in her debating a man. The rest of her conversations with police may be fighting words, but I have no way of knowing.

a reply to: Kali74

That's a moronic, ignorant statement. Christian terrorism is the biggest terrorist threat in the US and it's severely under reported.

That's a moronic statement. Considering the amount of failed terrorist attempts by Islamists, there is a much larger threat.

Look at all the Christians on this list:

List of Unsuccessful Terrorist Attempts post 9/11

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Engaging a Left bash circle jerk without having watched the video to even see if there's merit to the outrage? Interesting...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was responding to the first part of the journalists claim that she was saying this in the airport to which I assumed a gay employee or was telling a person working there she was going to bomb America.

So yes I may have read too much into it.

However if she was not American things get fuzzy. The 14th does not automatically protect her.

Furthermore if the reporter was to make the arguements as a citizen she would also have an uphill battle if he brought a case against her.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: 123143
Religious fanaticism should be classified as a mental illness.

Yes is it should and it should be considered child abuse.

Using the fear of Hell and demons and Devils and fire and smoke and damnation and torture and agony forever and ever for all eternity - what kind of sick # came up with this?

And they blow up their children. How sick is that?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Duh, no sh#t. It's an analogy. She seemed pretty riled up, possibly motivated.

I'm pretty riled up at my governments foreign policy, complain about it a lot, too.

I'm not going to go to an airport or crowded theatre and scare people though. Im not that kind of agitator.

Myself as well, I don't like the shotgun approach. I prefer zero collateral damage. Call me old fashioned, but from my time overseas we had code, no innocents, no civilians should ever be harmed in any campaign. Everything else out there apart from a dropping number of good men, are mercs and terrorists, and we know they don't have code.

These loud mouthed meatpuppet wannabee terrorists as well as the real ones, need to go.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: intrptr

So you're defending her?

Just her freedom of speech. She isn't hurting anyone.

So they falsely arrested her?

Not necessarily. A "True Threat" is not protected by the first amendment. Now, I can't get the video to play, so I don't know exactly what she said. Also defining a True Threat is subject to interpretation to a point. Finally, I am no legal expert by any means, so... But honestly, claiming false arrest is not going to fly IF (big if) she indicated that she would support or would herself bomb anything in the U.S. I doubt that they'll hold her and push the issue though. Too messy.

a reply to: redhorse

Try the video link in the article:
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Hang her.


She's giving all of us a bad name.

a reply to: IAMTAT

She looks friendly... Yep, lets continue to allow them in all over the western world.. Awesome plan!

Sorry Liberals, you can't have it both ways.. You can't try to force the gay and muslim agendas together at the same time. Its essentially mixing oil/water, because I'm sure their religion will never be accepting of gays, soooo...

a reply to: IAMTAT

When were the cops called and why? Thats what is left out. It say he started filming when the cops were questioning her.

If she was making the threats in an airport the day after a terror attack then this should be easily justified as a threat and fighting words.

Hell if me a white man did this stuff I would be in jail. No question I usually don't make these kind of arguements but I have seen people harassed for much less. My 74 year old mother in law was detained for not wanting to use the airport scanner and making a stink about it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

THREAT.

Here's another list though since we're doing that, this one is of actual acts of terror. Since 9/11 there have been 15 Islamic acts of terror in the US and 19 non-Islamic acts of terror.

a reply to: Kali74

To say unsuccessful terrorist plots are not threats is asinine.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: luthier

I watched the video. Those aren't fighting words. I think you might need to look into it more.

Also I am responding more to the reason the cops were called and if it's true she was saying these things to people. Saying this to a reporter is more in a gray area.

I agree. It's definitely a grey area. Threats to cops and airports warrants further police action, and the courts can decide whether the speech was protected by the first amendment.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: redhorse

Try the video link in the article:
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Thanks.

There is not a lot of room for interpretation on what she said. That is a clear and explicit threat. Free Speech doesn't cover that.

I will say, we don't know what they arrested her for in the first place for certain. She may have felt unjustly detained and searched and so amped up her rhetoric out of frustration (which does NOT excuse or justify what she said by any means). All the same, you don't get to walk around talking about intending to bomb people and still cry "Free Speech". It just doesn't work that way.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's not what I said.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: intrptr

So you're defending her?

Just her freedom of speech. She isn't hurting anyone.

What a stupid thing to say. Look every single time there is a terrorist attack we here about how we knew all about these terrorist before the attack.. They were on watch lists and no fly lists and had been reported by gunshop owners as suspicious.

Stupid bi## should be locked in a cage forever.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: luthier

I don't think you understand the subtlety of the law. For one,mspecifically regarding the debate she had with the man, these aren't personal threats.

Ok so which part of "I will have a safe flight but none of you will soon. I will make sure you go boom (Simulates a bomb going off), you will see." is not a threat?

You came in here defending the woman without watching the video in the 1st place and now your just making a fool of yourself by claiming what she said wasn't a threat. Sorry but that's just weak.