Update on the Middle-Eastern Musicians on the Plane...

[Draft Dodger]

I didn't read the initial thread, but I did read the article, and this is pretty much how I had it pegged...

http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

LOS ANGELES | July 22, 2004 – Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, “overreacted,” to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

Jacobsen, a self-described freelance writer, has published two stories about her experience at womenswallstreet.com, a business advice web site designed for women.

“The lady was overreacting,” said the source. “A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane.”

The middle eastern men were identified by federal agents as a group of touring musicians travelling to a concert date at a casino, said Air Marshals spokesman Dave Adams.

Jacobsen wrote she became alarmed when the men made frequent trips to the lavatory, repeatedly opened and closed the overhead luggage compartments, and appeared to be signaling each other.

“Initially it was brought to [the air marshals] attention by a passenger,” Adams said, adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.

Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.

“In concert with the flight crew, the decision was made to keep [the men] under surveillance since no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated aboard the aircraft; they didn’t interfere with the flight crew,” Adams said.

The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.

FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Los Angeles and the men were questioned, and Los Angeles field office spokeswoman Cathy Viray said it’s significant the alarm on the flight came from a passenger.

“We have to take all calls seriously, but the passenger was worried, not the flight crew or the federal air marshals,” she said. “The complaint did not stem from the flight crew.”

Several people were questioned, she said, but no one was detained.

Jacobsen’s husband Kevin told KFI NEWS he approached a man he thought was an air marshal after the flight had landed.

“You made me nervous,” Kevin said the air marshal told him.

“I was freaking out,” Kevin replied.

“We don’t freak out in situations like this,” the air marshal responded.

Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story.

“We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent.

“We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said. Each of the men were checked through a series of databases and watch-lists with negative results, he said.

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.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover.”

KFI reporter Jessica Rosenthal contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 KFI NEWS. All rights reserved.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting, but understandable all the way around IMO.

I had a kind-of opposite experience on a flight last year. The passengers were fine,
but the crew was a bit freaked out (we must not have had air marshals on board).

It's a long story, but easily the most nerve-wracking flight experience I've ever had. And not something I hope to ever go through again.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Let me make sure I understand what this unnamed "source" is saying....

There are 14 middle eastern men between the ages of 18 - 45 aboard this plane acting suspiciously, who have since been determined to have expired visas and were in this country illegally, and this unnamed source thinks Jacobsen was the problem? I know it's been a few years, but I don't remember, how many of those 9/11 hijackers were caucasion females? How many of the members of al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc..are caucasion females?

The fact that this unnamed "source" even considered Jacobsen to be a decoy should scare everyone. The refusal to admit who the enemies really are, by anyone in the government for the sake of political correctness or not offending anyone is what is going to get more Americans killed. We're doomed.

Oh, and before someone replies with the typical "it's just right wing fearmongering" argument, read the second chapter of the 9/11 Comission Report, and then tell me that it's fearmongering.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Using the above story only, I don't see where the source is saying that Jacobsen was "the problem." The source thinks that she overreacted. Unless you're referencing another story, Farrah, where is anyone suggesting that Jacobsen was a decoy? I'll submit that maybe I just missed something, but I got the impression that the air marshals felt that they had things under control, and they were just trying to do their job without interference.

And are we really "doomed"? I mean, really?

[Blackadar]

Plus, most of what we know is written through the eyes of Jacobsen. When you read her original story, she makes it sound like everyone on the plane is crying, very upset, scared, etc. Perhaps it was just her and her husband who were "freaking out" and everyone else on the plane was pretty calm.

[Arles]

Using the above story only, I don't see where the source is saying that Jacobsen was "the problem." The source thinks that she overreacted. Unless you're referencing another story, Farrah, where is anyone suggesting that Jacobsen was a decoy?
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.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover.”

That first comments seems to indicate they thought that maybe Jacobsen was some sort of terrorist plant with which to pull out who the air marshalls are.

[Draft Dodger]

Plus, most of what we know is written through the eyes of Jacobsen. When you read her original story, she makes it sound like everyone on the plane is crying, very upset, scared, etc. Perhaps it was just her and her husband who were "freaking out" and everyone else on the plane was pretty calm.

that's how I spun her article as well. she definitely seemed a little "high maintenance". to me, once a flight attendant said "there are air marshalls on the plane, and they are aware of the situation" then, to me, this woman needs to chill the fuck out and let it go.

[Peregrine]

Definitely good to see the full story here. I certainly can understand the concerns expressed in the original article, but it definitely seemed to me that there was a fairly good chance the author had been overreacting, particularly as she was told that all the men had been checked out through the government's lists, had valid passports etc.

[Draft Dodger]

That first comments seems to indicate they thought that maybe Jacobsen was some sort of terrorist plant with which to pull out who the air marshalls are.

well, the fact that they are prepared for more possibilities than just a group of middle-easterners is comforting to me. ymmv.

[Ben E Lou]

Wouldn't it make more sense to let them think they can get away with this sort of thing and then catch them in the act flat-footed with air marshals, as opposed to validating her story and making them go further underground?

Just a thought...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Pumpy - The story says "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." This implies that the air marshals must have thought Jacobsen was with working with the 14 syrians to distract them.

While I applaud them for trying to keep an open mind, I contend that this means they don't have an understanding of who the enemy really is. If this unnamed "source" was so focused on Jacobsen, how much attention was he really paying to the 14 syrians? How many Palestinian suicide bombers are caucasian females traveling with their families? How many terrorist in Iraq on the videos with kidnapped westerners are 30-something American females or even European females? None. So where is the pattern that would establish Jacobsen as someone who would work with a terrorist group? There isn't one. What pattern is there?

I stand by my statement. If the people entrusted to protect us don't want to identify who the enemy really is, for whatever reason, then I think we're all in trouble.

[Dutch]

DD, I agree, that thought didn't cross my mind. However, I have heard that air marshals are pretty easy to pick out on an airplane. If the passengers were running up and asking the air marshal if he was going to do anything, that's pretty bad cover.

[Peregrine]

Wouldn't it make more sense to let them think they can get away with this sort of thing and then catch them in the act flat-footed with air marshals, as opposed to validating her story and making them go further underground?


I know people who believe this, they get irate whenever they see "credible threats" announced by the government, and even the color coded security levels, because they think we'd be better off not telegraphing what we know by publically announcing it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Definitely good to see the full story here. I certainly can understand the concerns expressed in the original article, but it definitely seemed to me that there was a fairly good chance the author had been overreacting, particularly as she was told that all the men had been checked out through the government's lists, had valid passports etc.

Valid passports, but expired visas*. How extensive did the FBI check them out? I would think that if these 14 syrians had expired visas, they would be on the next plane back to Damascus. Yet they were allowed to continue on.

*Reported on Scarbourough Country Thursday night.

[Blackadar]

Pumpy - The story says "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." This implies that the air marshals must have thought Jacobsen was with working with the 14 syrians to distract them.

While I applaud them for trying to keep an open mind, I contend that this means they don't have an understanding of who the enemy really is. If this unnamed "source" was so focused on Jacobsen, how much attention was he really paying to the 14 syrians? How many Palestinian suicide bombers are caucasian females traveling with their families? How many terrorist in Iraq on the videos with kidnapped westerners are 30-something American females or even European females? None. So where is the pattern that would establish Jacobsen as someone who would work with a terrorist group? There isn't one. What pattern is there?

I stand by my statement. If the people entrusted to protect us don't want to identify who the enemy really is, for whatever reason, then I think we're all in trouble.

1. There are now female suicide bombers. They may not be of European decent, but they're female none the less.

2. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Middle-Eastern.

Put those two together...

Frankly, Farrah, I resent your statements quite a bit. It's like you think that women of European decent aren't capable of such an act. That's a bit naive and misguided, if not outright sexist/racist. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

[Ben E Lou]

I know people who believe this, they get irate whenever they see "credible threats" announced by the government, and even the color coded security levels, because they think we'd be better off not telegraphing what we know by publically announcing it.Here's a thought...

NON-SPECIFIC, CREDIBLE THREATS
Announce them. Let everyone know that "they might do something on a train" or whatever, to make the populace more diligent, because in these cases, we might be helpful.

SPECIFIC, CREDIBLE THREATS
Say nothing. If asked, divert attention, flat-out lie to the public, mischaracerize, do whatever it takes to lull them asleep, then catch the slime when you can both stop them AND lock them up for the rest of their lives.

[Draft Dodger]

Valid passports, but expired visas*. How extensive did the FBI check them out? I would think that if these 14 syrians had expired visas, they would be on the next plane back to Damascus. Yet they were allowed to continue on.

*Reported on Scarbourough Country Thursday night.

I hadn't heard this, but, yes, if they did check out the people after the flight, they should have definitely discovered that they had expired visas, and should have been given the boot. if not, something is definitley fucked up with the system, and needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed today.

doesn't change anything IMO about the actions of the air marshalls on the flight, or the overreaction from the Jacobsens.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

1. There are now female suicide bombers. They may not be of European decent, but they're female none the less.

2. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Middle-Eastern.

Put those two together...

Frankly, Farrah, I resent your statements quite a bit. It's like you think that women of European decent aren't capable of such an act. That's a bit naive and misguided, if not outright sexist/racist. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

Female middle eastern suicide bombers, yes. But not caucasion and not traveling with families. They are usually alone. How many females are in the hirearchy of al Qaeda? None. Why? I think that's an interesting question. I think its based on the fact that women are essentially garbage in the eyes of Islamic fundementalists. So why would they work with one? I don't think they would.

I resent the fact that instead of debating the issue you immediately call me a racist. How is it "like me" to think European women aren't capable of such an act? Do you even know me? I don't care if you don't like me, there's no need for name calling.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How is it "like me" to think European women aren't capable of such an act?

Umm, I'm on your side here but I think there's a misinterpretation in there.

Far be it from me to try to put words in this particular poster's mouth, but I believe the "like you" was meant as "It's as though", not as "That's just like you, to do xyz". From your quote above, it seemed to me that you were reading it more like the latter than the former.

Trivial semantic sidebar concluded ;)

[Arles]

It's like you think that women of European decent aren't capable of such an act. That's a bit naive and misguided, if not outright sexist/racist. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.
A lot of fighting Terrorism involves playing the %s. Considering none of the last 20 or plane terrorism incidents have involved black or white women, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a lot of effort into that possibility. However, nearly all have involved Middle Eastern or Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 45. So, therefore, it would make sense to "raise an eyebrow" if a big group of people in that demographic boarded the plane.

In some ways, the process is a lot like coaching a football team. What you are saying is akin to a defense playing the Chargers saying "Well, LT has been on fire for the past few weeks, but we are going to focus on stopping Reche Caldwell. I mean, the guy did have a good game back in 2002 and there's a chance he could have another one today".

If you take the aspect of race out of the equation and look at the situation logically, it certainly makes a great deal of sense to "profile" people that board planes from a % standpoint. El Al has been doing it for years and has one of the safest flight records in the middle of a terrorism hotbed.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Umm, I'm on your side here but I think there's a misinterpretation in there.

Far be it from me to try to put words in this particular poster's mouth, but I believe the "like you" was meant as "It's as though", not as "That's just like you, to do xyz". From your quote above, it seemed to me that you were reading it more like the latter than the former.

Trivial semantic sidebar concluded ;)

Good point. I think I was distracted by the racist/naive comments.

[Blackadar]

Female middle eastern suicide bombers, yes. But not caucasion and not traveling with families. They are usually alone. How many females are in the hirearchy of al Qaeda? None. Why? I think that's an interesting question. I think its based on the fact that women are essentially garbage in the eyes of Islamic fundementalists. So why would they work with one? I don't think they would.

I resent the fact that instead of debating the issue you immediately call me a racist. How is it "like me" to think European women aren't capable of such an act? Do you even know me? I don't care if you don't like me, there's no need for name calling.

Your own comments set the stage, Farrah. Let's replay a few...

I know it's been a few years, but I don't remember, how many of those 9/11 hijackers were caucasion females? How many of the members of al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc..are caucasion females?

The refusal to admit who the enemies really are, by anyone in the government for the sake of political correctness or not offending anyone is what is going to get more Americans killed.

How many terrorist in Iraq on the videos with kidnapped westerners are 30-something American females or even European females?

If the people entrusted to protect us don't want to identify who the enemy really is, for whatever reason, then I think we're all in trouble.

Let me start by saying the musicians should be watched, by simple profiling, I'd say yes. So should Jacobsen, by her own actions.

By your own statements, you consider American or European women above suspicion. Obviously, you think that you (and those like you) shouldn't be watched simply due to your ethnic origin.

Yea, I'd say that's pretty naive or racist. I'll let you pick.

Me? If someone is on a flight acting suspiciously or causing a disruption, I want the Air Marshall(s) watching that person, regardless of color or creed. Tim McVeigh proved that threats can come from any number of directions.

It's also interesting that twice you've used the word "enemy". These musicians were no more the enemy than the author. In fact, it sounds like the alarmist, hyper Annie Jacobsen was significantly more of a danger than they were.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good point. I think I was distracted by the racist/naive comments.

Understandable, I just figured that I might eliminate one aggravation from the pile ;)

This thread/subject reminds me of the classic quote (often attributed to Jeff Jarrett) about wrestling, which goes something like this: "For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't get it, no explanation will be sufficient."

[Peregrine]

While I applaud them for trying to keep an open mind, I contend that this means they don't have an understanding of who the enemy really is. If this unnamed "source" was so focused on Jacobsen, how much attention was he really paying to the 14 syrians?

This seems like a bit of an unfair judgement. I'm sure the air marshals on the plane were monitoring the Syrians and their behavior. But if some passengers on the plane were getting "freaked out" to the point that it was becoming an issue, and coming up to the air marshals to report their suspicions, despite being asked to calm down, it obviously made them a subject of at least passing concern, right?

The air marshals are trained to spot possible trouble, and implying that they were spending more time watching the author of the piece than the middle-eastern men does them a disservice.

[Arles]

I was thinking about this again. And I think an actual example may help here. Let's say we know that nearly all of the prior airline terrorists over the past 30 years had a tattoo of a sun on their right bicep. Would people have a big problem with stopping or atleast checking people that had that same tattoo before boarding a plane?

I mean, I'm sure there are a ton of non-terrorists out there with that same tattoo. Yet, I would also bet that most here would have no problem with that type of a policy and probably consider it good police tactics.

Now, by no means does this amount to ignoring everyone without the tattoo. But, I think it's safe to say that putting a great deal of more scrutiny on the people with that tattoo is in the best interest of the safety of all passengers - even though many people in that group will be completely innocent.

[Blackadar]

Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

Not yet. Does this make me unqualified? I'd dare say that given my background, I'm FAR more qualified to judge who or what is a threat than you are. That is unless you've spent more time in the intelligence community than I have. The chances of that are unlikely. My time was spent under William Webster.

Plus, basing the next attack from the profile of the last attack is a horrid misjudgement and very shortsighted. It's easy to prepare for that scenario. It's the one you don't expect that's the difficult job. Not only thinking of it, but getting people to realize it's credible and preparing for it.

[Blackadar]

I was thinking about this again. And I think an actual example may help here. Let's say we know that nearly all of the prior airline terrorists over the past 30 years had a tattoo of a sun on their right bicep. Would people have a big problem with stopping or atleast checking people that had that same tattoo before boarding a plane?

I mean, I'm sure there are a ton of non-terrorists out there with that same tattoo. Yet, I would also bet that most here would have no problem with that type of a policy and probably consider it good police tactics.

Now, by no means does this amount to ignoring everyone without the tattoo. But, I think it's safe to say that putting a great deal of more scrutiny on the people with that tattoo is in the best interest of the safety of all passengers - even though many people in that group will be completely innocent.

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY.

[Peregrine]

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY

Completely agree with this.

[Draft Dodger]

Completely agree with this.

me too.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

This seems like a bit of an unfair judgement. I'm sure the air marshals on the plane were monitoring the Syrians and their behavior. But if some passengers on the plane were getting "freaked out" to the point that it was becoming an issue, and coming up to the air marshals to report their suspicions, despite being asked to calm down, it obviously made them a subject of at least passing concern, right?

The air marshals are trained to spot possible trouble, and implying that they were spending more time watching the author of the piece than the middle-eastern men does them a disservice.

It wasn't a judgement, it was a question. If the air marshalls on board were concerned that Jacobsen was trying to get them to reveal themselves as part of a terrist plot, would they just ignore her? I doubt it, they would be watching her because they would have thought she was working a terrorist group. They would have wanted to see who she spoke to, who she made eye contact with. Did they have enough personnel on board to handle both the 14 syrians and Jacobsen?

Also something I find missing from this article - none of the airline personnel or other passengers have come out and said that Jacobsen was overracting. None the air marshalls have either. The only mention of overraction came from this "source close to the secretive federal protective service" almost a week and a half after Jacobsen's article came out. Sounds like someone in the secretive federal protective service is trying their hand at damage countrol.

[Ryan S]

once a flight attendant said "there are air marshalls on the plane, and they are aware of the situation" then, to me, this woman needs to chill the fuck out and let it go.Depending on how the the flight attendant said it, that comment has the potential to make somebody even more nervous. If somebody is already in a panicked state, that comment may 'confirm' their fears.

[Arles]

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY.
Outside of this one "unamed source", no one said she was disruptive. Not the air marshalls, flight attendants or other passengers. So, my guess is she was a little worried and pulled the flight attendents over a few times to make sure they saw what she did. Perfectly normal and what I would expect a "worrisome" person to do if 14 Syrians boarded a flight and acted a little odd in a post-9/11 world.

If she was that frantic or that much a distraction, I would guess that atleast one of the flight attendents, pilots or passengers would have mentioned it after the AP story ran.

[Blackadar]

Don't count on it, Arles. I'll just leave it at that...

[Arles]

Again, look at the chronology. The lady comes out with her story. Two AP sources do an initial follow up talking to a pilot, flight attendent and other passenger from that flight and no mention of the lady as "distracting" occurs.

Then, this story gets legs and all kinds of press. Suddenly, an "unnamed source" appears out of nowhere to debunk the whole thing and pass it off as the lady was just frantic and erratict. If I am with the Air marshalls or homeland security, I probably don't want another week of press on this potentially worrying even more passengers and maybe even causing a legit overreaction from fear on a future flight.

So, it makes sense to debunk the woman and alleviate everyone's fears. My point was that if this women was as much of a distraction as the source seems to indicate, why didn't the passengers/pilots/attendents of the flight that were later interviewed admit that?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Not yet. Does this make me unqualified? I'd dare say that given my background, I'm FAR more qualified to judge who or what is a threat than you are. That is unless you've spent more time in the intelligence community than I have. The chances of that are unlikely. My time was spent under William Webster.

Plus, basing the next attack from the profile of the last attack is a horrid misjudgement and very shortsighted. It's easy to prepare for that scenario. It's the one you don't expect that's the difficult job. Not only thinking of it, but getting people to realize it's credible and preparing for it.


I simply asked a question. If I thought it made you unqualified I would have said so.

You're probably right though - determining where the next attack will come from based on who's attacked in the past isn't really going to help. It's not like there is a history of Islamic fundamentalists trying to attack this country. There was just the Beirut Barracks in 1983, the first WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole in 2000. Nope, no reason to be more concerned about the 14 syrians with passports from a country that hosts such peaceful organizations as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

[Easy Mac]

I was thinking about this again. And I think an actual example may help here. Let's say we know that nearly all of the prior airline terrorists over the past 30 years had a tattoo of a sun on their right bicep. Would people have a big problem with stopping or atleast checking people that had that same tattoo before boarding a plane?

I mean, I'm sure there are a ton of non-terrorists out there with that same tattoo. Yet, I would also bet that most here would have no problem with that type of a policy and probably consider it good police tactics.

Now, by no means does this amount to ignoring everyone without the tattoo. But, I think it's safe to say that putting a great deal of more scrutiny on the people with that tattoo is in the best interest of the safety of all passengers - even though many people in that group will be completely innocent.
While I completely understand what you are saying, I think the analogy is a bit off for the following reason. Its one thing to have a tattoo to align yourself with a specific group, and quite another to be born into a specific group. These people can't help that they were born Syrian or have olive skin, but a person can help getting a revealing tattoo that shows their with a terrorist group. I think the two instances are different enough to distinguish between correct and incorrect means of profiling.

[digamma]

I simply asked a question. If I thought it made you unqualified I would have said so.

You're probably right though - determining where the next attack will come from based on who's attacked in the past isn't really going to help. It's not like there is a history of Islamic fundamentalists trying to attack this country. There was just the Beirut Barracks in 1983, the first WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole in 2000. Nope, no reason to be more concerned about the 14 syrians with passports from a country that hosts such peaceful organizations as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
You probably need to limit this to airplane related terrorist events. Otherwise, you have to consider Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, etc. And if you consider all of those, I'm not sure the race or ethnicity gets us anywhere. Limiting it to airplane hijackings (as I believe Arles did earlier) and I think your point is valid.

[Passacaglia]

Pumpy - The story says "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." This implies that the air marshals must have thought Jacobsen was with working with the 14 syrians to distract them.

I don't get it. It sounds like they're taking a situation (a woman causing a disturbance) and seeing how it relates to the potential threat (the Syrians). What's the problem?

[EagleFan]

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY.

So you are saynig that if she was there to act as a distraction, theyshould have watched her even more closely. Thus allowing her to become that distraction that she was planned on being and taking the focus off whatever was really going on (in the case that she was meant to be a decoy).

GOing back to the football analogy. It's like seenig an offensive team lineup in the same formation that they have always passed from with a fullback who has 2 carries in 10 games in the backfield and having your team totally commit to stopping the run, hence allowing the play-action to work.

[Blackadar]

You probably need to limit this to airplane related terrorist events. Otherwise, you have to consider Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, etc. And if you consider all of those, I'm not sure the race or ethnicity gets us anywhere. Limiting it to airplane hijackings (as I believe Arles did earlier) and I think your point is valid.

My point exactly. It's not just who, which Farrah's line of thought, it's how. We've been hit by cars. Boats. Planes. Trucks. Mail. And many others. We've been attacked by Middle-Eastern radicals. Philippineos. Good ole' Americans. South Americans. And many others.

No one is above suspicion. You can profile for likely suspects, but you just can't concentrate on ONLY those. Farrah, white women can be suspects too. Deal with it.

Not just that, you can't limit it to airplane hijackings. Take a guess what the last two airplane hijackings were involving the USA...

Give up?

Cubans. Yep, planes hijacked from Cuba and flown here.

So, no, you can't profile that easily. :)

[Maple Leafs]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of racial profiling. But is it possible to have the discussion without someone inevitably chiming in with this:
2. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Middle-Eastern.
I'm not picking on Blacky, because this comes up everytime the profiling discussion happens. At least he resisted the urge to go into the "Let's profile all white males" routine.

Look, Oklahoma City was a terrible tragedy, but if you think all terrorism is the same, with the same root causes and the same corrective actions, you're just not taking the issue very seriously.

[Blackadar]

Would you have preferred Eric Rudolph?

[Dutch]

Hey, we liked to profile the Germans as the bad guys in WWII Europe. Sure we could have spent equal portions of the Allied Assault on Romania and Bulgaria to be more PC, but amazingly, when the "profiled" Germans fell, the rest of the bunch fell too. ;)

[Blackadar]

Hey, we liked to profile the Germans as the bad guys in WWII Europe. Sure we could have spent equal portions of the Allied Assault on Romania and Bulgaria to be more PC, but amazingly, when the "profiled" Germans fell, the rest of the bunch fell too. ;)

I'll give this what it deserves.

:rolleyes:

[Desnudo]

I appreciate that they were keeping tabs on everyone on the plane. The story says they were checking the bathrooms after the musicians exited. What else should they be doing? Kneecapping the musicians, just in case? Cuff them to prevent them from waving to each other? Does anyone else think that the fact that no one said anything about the woman possibly overeacting on the flight indicates that maybe no one else thought the whole incident was newsworthy?

I agree with Blackadar that solely focusing our energy on Arab males 18-45 is likely to result in disaster. The Homeland Security Dept. recently warned that Al Qaeda could attempt to use more European looking people, including women, to better avoid suspicion. All it takes is one. And they certainly are capable if you remember back to the 80s and the days of the Red Brigade and other groups. With resentment of the US building everywhere abroad, I wouldn't want our agents to overlook anyone.

[Draft Dodger]

I'm not picking on Blacky, because this comes up everytime the profiling discussion happens. At least he resisted the urge to go into the "Let's profile all white males" routine.

Look, Oklahoma City was a terrible tragedy, but if you think all terrorism is the same, with the same root causes and the same corrective actions, you're just not taking the issue very seriously.

the way I read this, you are actually backing up what Blacky is saying.

[Draft Dodger]

With resentment of the US building everywhere abroad, I wouldn't want our agents to overlook anyone.

abroad AND at home.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

No one is above suspicion. You can profile for likely suspects, but you just can't concentrate on ONLY those. Farrah, white women can be suspects too. Deal with it.

And which of those attackers you listed are white women? Let alone white women traveling with their families? None that I recall. So the only suspicious activity of Jacobsen was that she witnessed suspicious activity by 14 middle eastern men and was trying to get someone to do something about it? Yes, that is indeed something that would make me suspect her. I guess when government officials ask us to be vigilant, its only lip service? When someone actually tries to do something about it, well then they become a suspect.


Not just that, you can't limit it to airplane hijackings. Take a guess what the last two airplane hijackings were involving the USA...

Give up?

Cubans. Yep, planes hijacked from Cuba and flown here.

If I recall, once those planes reached Florida the only demands of those hijackers were asylumn. Their goal wasn't the destruction of every man, woman and child in the US.

Yet, there are organizations sponsored by countries like Syria whose only mission is to kill "infidels" and "zionists". I think people from those countries should be scrutinzed more closely. To not is just dangerous.

[duckman]

Here is something to consider:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56558-2004Jul16.html

Al Qadea Recruiting Non-Arabs, FBI Says

WASHINGTON IN BRIEF


Al Qaeda may be recruiting non-Arabs less likely to attract the notice of security personnel to carry out attacks inside the United States, the FBI warned yesterday.

The terrorist network especially seeks operatives who have U.S. citizenship or legal residency status, the FBI's counterterrorism division said in its weekly bulletin to 18,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide.

"Finding operatives with U.S. status would greatly facilitate al Qaeda's ability to carry out an attack within the United States," the bulletin said.

------------

So now who's to say that a white female terrorist couldn't board a plane? There are several white people who are sympathizers of Al Qaeda that could be used in terrorist attacks on our country. Air Marshalls need to watch anyone who could be possible terrorist threat on an airliner despite their skin color. So if Jacobson was causing a panic on the aircraft, I would keep an eye on her too.

[duckman]

And which of those attackers you listed are white women? Let alone white women traveling with their families?
How would you know if they were traveling wiht their families if they're not looking for white female terrorists?

[Blackadar]

Thanks, duck.

Your response was much nicer than mine was going to be. :)

[duckman]

Thanks, duck.

Your response was much nicer than mine was going to be. :)
I thought I be civil today. :)

[Desnudo]

And which of those attackers you listed are white women? Let alone white women traveling with their families? None that I recall.

And what happens the first time it does happen? Reference the article link in the previous message. The enemy isn't stupid and they have money, they aren't going to keep sending people that set off all the alarm bells.

No one here is saying that the likelyhood of a white woman with family committing a terrorist attack is as high as other groups, but to completely discount the possibility seems like sticking your head in the sand. All it will take is one loose screw with blond hair, blue eyes and boobs to make your argument false.

[Draft Dodger]

All it will take is one loose screw with blond hair, blue eyes and boobs...

I can vouch for this. I ran into on of these types - I'm not sure I could categorize her fucking up my life at the time as an act of terrorism, but it was pretty close.
:D

[KWhit]

You're probably right though - determining where the next attack will come from based on who's attacked in the past isn't really going to help. It's not like there is a history of Islamic fundamentalists trying to attack this country. There was just the Beirut Barracks in 1983, the first WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole in 2000. Nope, no reason to be more concerned about the 14 syrians with passports from a country that hosts such peaceful organizations as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
I didn't know that all Islamic fundamentalists looked the same.

And devout Muslims aren't supposed to shave right? So we only need to worry about people with beards.

Oh wait, they already blew that myth.

They're not stupid. If we decide that we're gonna focus on men who obviously look middle-eastern, they will find a woman. They will find a light skinned man who bleaches his hair. Or they'll find a sympathetic European or American to do some of the dirty work.

It's okay to look suspiciously at everyone.

[KWhit]

Dola -

And what were the musicians doing that was so suspicious? They went to the bathroom, talked to each other in their own language, and got stuff from the overhead compartment. Oh, and one of them had a Burger King bag. Arrest him!

[rexallllsc]

Tim McVeigh, anyone?

[Draft Dodger]

Dola -

And what were the musicians doing that was so suspicious? They went to the bathroom, talked to each other in their own language, and got stuff from the overhead compartment. Oh, and one of them had a Burger King bag. Arrest him!

don't forget - the one guy who smiled at the lady before they got on the plane suddenly was giving her mean looks. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that she was visibly freaking out over the Syrians.

[Draft Dodger]

Tim McVeigh, anyone?

and the "I Didn't Read Any Of This Thread Before Replying Award" goes to...

:p

[Crapshoot]

Dola -

And what were the musicians doing that was so suspicious? They went to the bathroom, talked to each other in their own language, and got stuff from the overhead compartment. Oh, and one of them had a Burger King bag. Arrest him!

Dood- isnt it obvious > as Farrah and that Jacobsen lady concluded, they must be terrorists. Its to see Ms Rahn's intelligence in tow- perhaps we need tracking devices on every brown person in this country, as that might satiate her thirst for "Action". That beind said, I better run and hide before they get to me....



At some point, it is absolutely absurd to say that men who were screened and taken apart for a "individual" check (I should know- happens to me every time) are deserving of even more suspicion once they get on the plane. I cannot believe that paranoid, racist freaks like Jacobsen (and its not a word I use very often) are getting pandered to this much. Racial profiling is one thing (and may be legitimate), but if Farrah and co are actually of the un-educated belief that the next attack will only come from dark brown men with long beards, Im glad you're not in charge of security. Islam is the world's second biggest religion today- over a billion people, and growing faster than any other. Within that group, they are certainly fanatics- of all colors, just like within Christianity. Targetting a niche means overlooking the bigger picture..

[Arles]

Before every jumps off the deep end here ;), I think a major point is being missed. Prevention of terrorism in the air involves three steps, IMO. First, there is "prescreening". This occurs to try and prevent terrorists from even making it to the airport. This is where profiling needs to occur. Ie, passenger lists can be cross-referenced against known aliases and terrorists lists. Plus, maybe a flag if more than X passengers fitting the "profile" are on board (maybe that flag triggers an air marshal or atleast more vigilence on that plane).

Two, the baggage screening. Three, the boarding of the plane and the flight. I see a not much need for profiling in 2 as the equipment should be able to detect what the threat should be for that stage. But, in stage 3, I think that a certain degree of caution by flight attendents and perhaps even some profiling isn't really a bad idea. Of course, I think it's also human nature that most people would be slightly more on their guard if a group of 14 middle eastern people boarded as opposed to the retirement bingo club.

All this can be done without showing a complete blind eye to other "oddballs" though. Just because an Air Marshall or flight attendent does some initial profiling (maybe making a probability list of likely terrorists) before the plan does not mean they don't do anything if things change throughout the flight.

Again, for the football analogy, profiling is like the gameplanning and scripting of the first 12 or so plays by the coach. Now, if in the game the opposing team known for its passing suddenly breaks off two or three big-gainers on the ground, the coach may make some adjustments.

The goal here is to be as prepared as possible in the event that a group of terrorists decides to hijak a flight again. And, it would be almost irresponsible to not use the one common feature on nearly all recent terrorist hijakings to help in that goal - the precense of Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 45.

[Arles]

but if Farrah and co are actually of the un-educated belief that the next attack will only come from dark brown men
I wonder why someone would think that may possibly be the case :rolleyes:

[Arles]

While I completely understand what you are saying, I think the analogy is a bit off for the following reason. Its one thing to have a tattoo to align yourself with a specific group, and quite another to be born into a specific group. These people can't help that they were born Syrian or have olive skin, but a person can help getting a revealing tattoo that shows their with a terrorist group. I think the two instances are different enough to distinguish between correct and incorrect means of profiling.
There are thousands of people with tattoos of a sun or heart or similar sign on their right arm that have no affiliation to terror. Is it then fair to check them out if their tattoo matches the one the terrorists have?

And if so, doesn't that fly in the face of your argument as I'm sure some biker in Alabama that gets a tattoo of a sun on his right bicep has no idea of the terror link.

If the tattoo analogy bother you, think of one by height and hair color. Maybe the FBI learns that Al Qaeda is using a US operative that is 6-5 with red hair. Should they just disregard all 6-5 red-haired males because they don't want to bother someone that is innocent?

Arlie

[GrantDawg]

Understandable, I just figured that I might eliminate one aggravation from the pile ;)

This thread/subject reminds me of the classic quote (often attributed to Jeff Jarrett) about wrestling, which goes something like this: "For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't get it, no explanation will be sufficient."
Wow, great quote. I believe that statement fits 99% of the debate threads on the internet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow, great quote. I believe that statement fits 99% of the debate threads on the internet.

Thanks, I have found that statement to be extremely useful in a variety of situations.

[dawgfan]

I wonder why someone would think that may possibly be the case :rolleyes:

Before you roll your eyes Arles, have you bothered to read the reports (quoted in this thread as well) that Al Qaeda is actively recruiting operatives that don't fit the current profile, i.e. brown-skinned middle eastern men?

If you really think that Al Qaeda will continue to use the exact same techniques as they've used in the past, you're the one being naive.

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the contention that certain racial profiling is a bad thing when it comes to things like air travel. The contention that you and Farrah seem to be implying is that terrorist activities will only be undertaken by those that fit a specific profile.

Additionally, there seems to be some downplaying of the Timothy McVeigh situation, as though what he did wasn't terrorism. Who's to say that another extremely disgruntled American citizen might not utilize methods of terrorist actions similar to those used by Al Qaeda?

[dawgfan]

Wow, great quote. I believe that statement fits 99% of the debate threads on the internet.

I find that quote to be evidence of a closed mind and a very condescending attitude, i.e. if they don't agree with my position, they just don't get it. It couldn't possibly be that they don't agree because they have valid reasons to do so...

[GrantDawg]

Actualy the last warning I saw out was about a "domestic terrorist" attack. I can't remember what it was...

[sabotai]

What dawgfan said. I don't think anyone has said we shouldn't keep eyes out for large groups of middle-eastern men (which seems to be the sarcastic cry from one side in this thread. No one said it, yet you argue against it...odd). Of course we need to watch them closely. But if we don't prepare, at least a little, for what apparently some people think is unthinkable or not possible, then that's exacty what they are going to try like hell to do.

[GrantDawg]

I find that quote to be evidence of a closed mind and a very condescending attitude, i.e. if they don't agree with my position, they just don't get it. It couldn't possibly be that they don't agree because they have valid reasons to do so...
Or it could be what you are arguing is a matter of opinion. It made me think of the "I love NASCAR" "NASCAR is a bunch of redneck idiots" debates. That was the context of the original quote I believe (wrestling in that instance), but could be used on most of what is argued.

Anyway, carry on.

[dawgfan]

Or it could be what you are arguing is a matter of opinion. It made me think of the "I love NASCAR" "NASCAR is a bunch of redneck idiots" debates. That was the context of the original quote I believe (wrestling in that instance), but could be used on most of what is argued.

Anyway, carry on.

Yeah, in the context of the example about NASCAR, it's a matter of opinion and I wouldn't really object to that quote. When it's applied to something like our vigilance against another terrorist attack, I think it's inappropriate.

I'll shut-up now about it since this isn't really on-topic.

[Arles]

Before you roll your eyes Arles, have you bothered to read the reports (quoted in this thread as well) that Al Qaeda is actively recruiting operatives that don't fit the current profile, i.e. brown-skinned middle eastern men?
I don't buy it. Not only is it extremely risky to go up to some US black or white citizen that doesn't have the history with Al Qaeda, you also have to look at the US population. I don't know of any cases where a white/black US citizen strapped on a bomb and not only killed himself but also a bunch of random innocent people. For examples of the average US nutcase everyone like to use McVeigh. But, remember, he didn't do a suicide bombing. He rigged it and then fled. For the above to be true, you would need to find someone having a US upbrining that is willing to strap a bomb to their chest and kill hundreds to thousands of innocent people. IMO, that's a tough find in the states. Even John Walker pleaded for his life when push came to shove.

So, I think we should keep an eye on chatter on this, but I wouldn't change our profiling to commit to this new "threat".

If you really think that Al Qaeda will continue to use the exact same techniques as they've used in the past, you're the one being naive.
Between the risk of having that non-Middle Eastern person chicken out and/or tell, plus the tough find someone like that would be, makes it a non-likely event. It may happen, but I think sticking the search to middle eastern men is a higher probability solution.

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the contention that certain racial profiling is a bad thing when it comes to things like air travel. The contention is that you and Farrah seem to be implying that terrorist activities will only be undertaken by those that fit a specific profile.
First, all I was talking about was air travel. Second, I see little to reason to think that if another event in the air occurs that it would NOT be by a middle-eastern man. Now, certainly if someone else acts all squirly on the flight they should be dealt with. But, when you are trying to take steps to prevent terrorism in the air, I think the smart money is spent on scrutinizing arab men.


Additionally, there seems to be some downplaying of the Timothy McVeigh situation, as though what he did wasn't terrorism. Who's to say that another extremely disgruntled American citizen might not utilize methods of terrorist actions similar to those used by Al Qaeda?
Because there is little precedent for a McVeigh-type person to strap themselves with explosives or cause a plan to crash killing hundreds of random people they never met (as well as themselves). Almost always people like this have a direct target (not just the random US citizen) and often they choose not to die themselves in the process.

[Dutch]

I'll give this what it deserves.

:rolleyes:

As long as you can't argue it, you can roll your eyes all you want. :)

[dawgfan]

I don't buy it. Not only is it extremely risky to go up to some US black or white citizen that doesn't have the history with Al Qaeda, you also have to look at the US population. I don't know of any cases where a white/black US citizen strapped on a bomb and not only killed himself but also a bunch of random innocent people. For examples of the average US nutcase everyone like to use McVeigh. But, remember, he didn't do a suicide bombing. He rigged it and then fled. For the above to be true, you would need to find someone having a US upbrining that is willing to strap a bomb to their chest and kill hundreds to thousands of innocent people. IMO, that's a tough find in the states. Even John Walker pleaded for his life when push came to shove.

If your point is you don't think anyone born in the U.S. is fanatical enough to kill a bunch of people and be willing to die in the process, there are any countless number of killings/suicides in this country to counter your claim.

Muslims come in all nationalities and colors. I have no doubts that it's been far easier for Al Qaeda to find radical fundamentalist Muslims of arabic/middle-eastern descent to carry out their suicide attacks, but that by itself doesn't mean they can't find someone of lighter skin and hair color from a country not in the middle-east. All it will take is a very small few. And they don't necessarily have to be American either - they could come from any number of countries that aren't generally considered hotbeds of fundamentalist Islam.

So, I think we should keep an eye on chatter on this, but I wouldn't change our profiling to commit to this new "threat".

Between the risk of having that non-Middle Eastern person chicken out and/or tell, plus the tough find someone like that would be, makes it a non-likely event. It may happen, but I think sticking the search to middle eastern men is a higher probability solution.

First, all I was talking about was air travel. Second, I see little to reason to think that if another event in the air occurs that it would NOT be by a middle-eastern man. Now, certainly if someone else acts all squirly on the flight they should be dealt with. But, when you are trying to take steps to prevent terrorism in the air, I think the smart money is spent on scrutinizing arab men.

Nowhere did I suggest changing our profiling. But it would also be naive to dismiss out of hand the possibility that someone not fitting the arabic/middle-eastern profile could be a threat if they are acting in a suspiscious manner.

And please point out where anyone has suggested that scrutinizing arab men on flights, especially when there is a group of multiple arab men on the same flight is a bad idea?

Because there is little precedent for a McVeigh-type person to strap themselves with explosives or cause a plan to crash killing hundreds of random people they never met (as well as themselves). Almost always people like this have a direct target (not just the random US citizen) and often they choose not to die themselves in the process.

Well, before 9/11 who would have thought that hijackers would use airplanes as suicide missles? There's a first time for everything Arlie. We know Al Qaeda desperately wishes to strike the U.S. again, and they know we've taken significant measures to prevent them from doing so. Why wouldn't they pursue means of circumventing our defenses by finding operatives that don't fit the standard profile?

[Blackadar]

Arles, I just want to make sure I understand...this position that you're taking now and the position that Farrah has taken all along is that certain groups are above suspicion and should never be watched? And that we should criticize those who do so? Because that is exactly what she wrote. And the inference is that certain groups (white women?) are incapable of such attacks.

And there's been a number of suicidal domestic terrorist attacks. We just didn't tag them as such...

One in particular was in Columbine. That was a suicide attack. Remember it? How about rampages at Post Offices? McDonalds? These also could easily be called terrorist attacks by disenfranchised US citizens. Want to think again that only certain groups in the world are capable of such attacks? And almost all of these were committed with the intention of never getting taken alive.

Frankly, this is some of the most ignorant or blatently racist crap I've seen posted on this board. I ABSOLUTELY resent the line of thinking that only Muslims are capable of such acts when history has proved, time and time again, that most any group is capable of such massacres when the right buttons are pushed. It's just plain ignorance and self-delusion to think otherwise.

[Draft Dodger]

I ABSOLUTELY resent the line of thinking that only Muslims are capable of such acts...

only male, 18-35 year-old, Middle-Eastern Muslims...

[Blackadar]

only male, 18-35 year-old, Middle-Eastern Mulsims...

Yea, I'm sort of surprised they haven't used the term "sand n-" by now.

[Arles]

Arles, I just want to make sure I understand...this position that you're taking now and the position that Farrah has taken all along is that certain groups are above suspicion and should never be watched?
I don't think that's what I've said. If you get solid intel that says a 6-foot-5 white man with red hair has been hired by Al Qaeda to crash a plane. Profile the heck out of that.

What I am saying is that without any solid intel on a specific person and/or appearance, the best we can do is stick to profiling middle eastern men and hoping that people are vigilant when odd things occur (not unlike the lady in the story). There are bound to be some overreaction from time to time, but I would rather have that than have 70 people sit idly by while the next 9-11 happens.

And that we should criticize those who do so? Because that is exactly what she wrote. And the inference is that certain groups (white women?) are incapable of such attacks.
While we are married, I can't speak for what she meant. But, I am assuming she meant when faced with the potential of 12 middle eastern guys or one white woman, an air marshall should probably worry more about the guys from the middle east.

And there's been a number of suicidal domestic terrorist attacks. We just didn't tag them as such...
But they often involve a targeted person or company. Rarely does some guy wake up and strap a bomb to his chest and board a bus like in places like the middle east. There are whole legions of people willing to do that in Palestine and Iraq. I don't see home-grown US people fitting that bill with extremely rare exceptions (so rare that I can't even think of one).


One in particular was in Columbine. That was a suicide attack. Remember it? How about rampages at Post Offices? McDonalds? These also could easily be called terrorist attacks by disenfranchised US citizens.
Yes, but these are all targeted attacks. Whether it's by a disgrunteled employee or kid that was picked on, they were pushed by unfortunate events to do what they did. These people didn't just wake up one random morning and go blow up a plane with 70 people they had never met from companies they had never heard of.

Frankly, this is some of the most ignorant or blatently racist crap I've seen posted on this board. I ABSOLUTELY resent the line of thinking that only Muslims are capable of such acts when history has proved, time and time again, that most any group is capable of such massacres when the right buttons are pushed. It's just plain ignorance and self-delusion to think otherwise.
Crying racism is a pretty big crutch often used by people unwilling to enter a productive debate on a difficult issue. My entire premise has been based on playing the odds. Is it possible that some random US worker wakes up one morning, joins up with Al Qaeda, straps a bomb to his chest and blows up a plane? I guess. Anything's possible. But if we are going to be serious about preventing terrorism on planes, we have to play the odds with our time and resources. And, investing effort into those type of theories over a more targeted approach to the higher probability middle eastern men attack seems pointless.

Now, if we get some tangible info like the above (6-5, red-haired man), that's a different story. I was simply referring to the original point of this thread (if anyone still remembers) that was that it was silly for this air marshall to worry more about some frightened lady than a group of 12 Syrians on the plane. I expect many people on this board would have felt a lump in their throat if 12 syrians entered a plane they were on and started taking odd shifts to the restroom. So, seeing a lady in the post-911 US to call over the flight attendent a few times and get a little antsy when she was told "the air marshalls have it covered" seems not all that odd to me.

[yabanci]

............ So, seeing a lady in the post-911 US to call over the flight attendent a few times and get a little antsy when she was told "the air marshalls have it covered" seems not all that odd to me.

In other words, being a hysterical, bigoted shrew is just fine these days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I find that quote to be evidence of a closed mind and a very condescending attitude, i.e. if they don't agree with my position, they just don't get it. It couldn't possibly be that they don't agree because they have valid reasons to do so...

Take it how you choose.

If "their" reasons were valid, or at least sufficient, then we wouldn't be on opposite sides of the argument (be it this subject, or topic X if you will), we'd be on the same side of the subject. Otherwise, you'd be left holding a position that you knew was wrong (having accepted the validity/correctness of the other argument/interpretation).

The quote applies quite well IMO whenever you see a topic that has positions that are firmly entrenched & very unlikely to damn neared certain not to be changed on either side.

Just to use this case for the purpose of an example. I know of nothing possible that I could offer Blackie to change his position. Nor can I think of anything that he could offer to change mine. It's not like there's an absence of evidence/information/factors on which either of us has based our position, it's just an entirely different allocation of weight to the various inputs that lead to very different conclusions.

Which makes any "discussion", "debate" or "argument" fairly pointless to anyone except observers who may not have yet weighed the various inputs enough to have reached their own conclusions. For the participants (who have already solidified their positions) anything that the other side says is irrelevant -- not because their the "other side" but rather because their arguments have already been rejected previously, their evidence already found wanting, and their reason(s) dismissed as faulty/flawed/incorrect.

(FTR, I really wish that last paragraph had the benefit of voice inflection, because I don't know if it reads "dry" with the emphasis in all the right places to get the nuances across)

[duckman]

In other words, being a hysterical, bigoted shrew is just fine these days.
Seems like we have few of those on this board. :(

[Arles]

Nowhere did I suggest changing our profiling. But it would also be naive to dismiss out of hand the possibility that someone not fitting the arabic/middle-eastern profile could be a threat if they are acting in a suspiscious manner.
This seems like a bit of a scarecrow. I don't think either Farrah or myself are saying to completely ignore some white person running to the plane with fuses popping out of their shoes. My point was simply that unless we get direct intel on a specific person/event, assuming that the next attack in the air will not be done by a middle-eastern man is not wise. Prior history and the overall odds certainly favor that to be the case.

There's a first time for everything Arlie.
I don't know if this is a wise statement with which to revolve our anti-terrorism efforts. While it is certainly true, it seems like a waste of time to simply brainstorm possible crazy situations for attacks and not stick to what we know. Again, if we get intel on something else, that changes things.

We know Al Qaeda desperately wishes to strike the U.S. again, and they know we've taken significant measures to prevent them from doing so. Why wouldn't they pursue means of circumventing our defenses by finding operatives that don't fit the standard profile?
Because, quite honestly, I don't know that they will have to given our PC approach to fighting terrorism.

[Pumpy Tudors]

When Jacobsen was told that the air marshals had it covered, what more did she want? I think that the fact that the air marshals were onboard and aware of the situation demonstrates that profiling was in full effect. Last time I commented in this thread, I missed something, so maybe I'm missing something again. If so, what is it?

[Arles]

In other words, being a hysterical, bigoted shrew is just fine these days.
All that's been verified that this lady did was call over the flight attendent twice and mention what she saw. She didn't go over and cuss out the men or scream out they were terrorists. She was just being proactive on what she preceived to be a threat. It's unfortunate that some innocent musicians had to be questioned by the FBI after the fact and perhaps she should have kept quiet after her first comment to the stewardess, but I don't see what she did as all that unreasonable. Slightly paranoid and probably unneccessary, but I don't think it was done out of malice.

[Arles]

When Jacobsen was told that the air marshals had it covered, what more did she want? I think that the fact that the air marshals were onboard and aware of the situation demonstrates that profiling was in full effect. Last time I commented in this thread, I missed something, so maybe I'm missing something again. If so, what is it?
After reading the last 10 comments, I'm not really sure what we are arguing anymore. I think everyone thinks that some degree of profiling is needed on flights. Everyone feels that people need to be vigilant to a point and everyone feels that (with the proper intel) anyone of any race could be the culprit.

The only distinction I can see is that half of us are branded racist. :rolleyes:

[sabotai]

nm, last post kind of covered...besides, I don't want to get hit during this pissing contest. :)

[Anthony]

I simply asked a question. If I thought it made you unqualified I would have said so.

You're probably right though - determining where the next attack will come from based on who's attacked in the past isn't really going to help. It's not like there is a history of Islamic fundamentalists trying to attack this country. There was just the Beirut Barracks in 1983, the first WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole in 2000. Nope, no reason to be more concerned about the 14 syrians with passports from a country that hosts such peaceful organizations as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.


hee hee, i like your style, hun. keep it up. :)

i agree with the Rahn's. the only thing being PC will do is ensure it's much easier for terorrists to do us harm.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Arlie, I don't really know what's being argued here anymore either.

With that said, it appears that some people think it's impossible for the air marshals to keep an eye on the Syrians and anyone else who may be acting suspiciously on the aircraft (some may think that Jacobsen was acting suspiciously, some may think not). The air marshals are professionals. In this particular case, I think they're either capable of doing their job or they're not. If they're capable of doing their jobs, then to maybe tag Jacobsen as "suspicious" shouldn't dilute their efforts toward keeping an eye on the Syrians. If they're not capable of doing their jobs, then it wouldn't matter whether Jacobsen had said anything or not. That's what leads me to ask what more she could've possibly wanted from the flight attendants or the air marshals. Did she want them to take some form of action? What could anyone have done to make her feel safer?

For some reason, I'm starting to hear George Carlin's voice in my head.

[Draft Dodger]

I don't think either Farrah or myself are saying to completely ignore some white person running to the plane with fuses popping out of their shoes. My point was simply that unless we get direct intel on a specific person/event, assuming that the next attack in the air will not be done by a middle-eastern man is not wise. Prior history and the overall odds certainly favor that to be the case.

here's the quote from the article:

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.



...adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.


...The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.

you seem to be painting this as if the Syrians were all ignored, and the focus was all placed on this woman. I certainly don't get that idea from reading this article. It looks like the marshalls were watching these guys closely, and when this lamebrain started acting like a fool, also kept an eye on her, with the thought that she could be a possible diversion (btw, she doesn't need to be a CONCIOUS participant in the plot; it is certainly a plausible thought that she could have been duped/manipulated into creating a diversion without her knowing what she was doing).

to me, this all worked correctly - there was racial profiling being done, and it was being used not to convict or investigate a crime, but to keep the eyes open for suspicious activity. I certainly can deal with that type of profiling. The woman freaked out. It's understandable, to a point, that she would have concerns, but her conduct was rather unexcusable and irrational after she discovered the marshalls were aware of the situation. and then, I think, her imagination worked overtime a bit as she thought about things more and more after the flight, and we get an article that's much more a work of fiction and born of stereotypes than any basis in fact.

[Anthony]

When Jacobsen was told that the air marshals had it covered, what more did she want? I think that the fact that the air marshals were onboard and aware of the situation demonstrates that profiling was in full effect. Last time I commented in this thread, I missed something, so maybe I'm missing something again. If so, what is it?

the 9/11 planes were brought down by 14 men TOTAL - that means 2 planes of 5 terrorists and 1 plane of only 4. this plane in this situation had 14 men who fit similar profiles ALTOGETHER. unless there were 10 or more air marshall's on the plane (and i'd have no reason to believe an airline would give up the revenue that you lose by setting aside 10+ seats for security) i wouldn't feel considerably safer if i was in a panicked state like this women was.

[Draft Dodger]

hee hee, i like your style, hun. keep it up. :)

i agree with the Rahn's. the only thing being PC will do is ensure it's much easier for terorrists to do us harm.

who was being PC, exactly? they were watching the Syrians. they didn't intevene not because of PC, but becuase THEY WEREN'T FUCKING DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

[Pumpy Tudors]

the 9/11 planes were brought down by 14 men TOTAL - that means 2 planes of 5 terrorists and 1 plane of only 4. this plane in this situation had 14 ALTOGETHER. unless there were 10 or more air marshall's on the plane (and i'd have no reason to believe an airline would give up the revenue that you lose by setting aside 10+ seats for security) i wouldn't feel considerably safer if i was in a panicked state like this women was.

Okay, so can you perhaps take a guess at what she wanted from the crew? If nobody knows, that's fine, but she brought attention to herself during the whole thing. Regardless of her race, ethnicity, or sex, when she puts such a spotlight on herself, people are going to start watching her too.

[Draft Dodger]

the 9/11 planes were brought down by 14 men TOTAL - that means 2 planes of 5 terrorists and 1 plane of only 4. this plane in this situation had 14 men who fit similar profiles ALTOGETHER. unless there were 10 or more air marshall's on the plane (and i'd have no reason to believe an airline would give up the revenue that you lose by setting aside 10+ seats for security) i wouldn't feel considerably safer if i was in a panicked state like this women was.


then you need to take off the skirt and start acting like a man.

(non-PC enough?)

[Anthony]

who was being PC, exactly? they were watching the Syrians. they didn't intevene not because of PC, but becuase THEY WEREN'T FUCKING DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

being PC as in the civil liberty morons in this thread who think someone overreacting to 14 people who fit the profile of a group known to attack Americans is racist or disruptive.

[Anthony]

then you need to take off the skirt and start acting like a man.

(non-PC enough?)

okay Rambo. i'd like to see how fast you'd shit your pants once 14 terrorists stood up and said they were taking over the plane.

[Dutch]

In other words, being a hysterical, bigoted shrew is just fine these days.

I don't consider it bigotry to be nervous (in a post 9/11 world) about a bunch of Middle-Eastern looking men acting odd on an airliner.

She didn't have to get freaked out, but I applaud her for being vigilant.

[Pumpy Tudors]

being PC as in the civil liberty morons in this thread who think someone overreacting to 14 people who fit the profile of a group known to attack Americans is racist or disruptive.

I realize that my opinion doesn't mean much to you (nor should it, really), but to throw the word "morons" in there sucks a little credibility out of your argument. I'm not saying that you shouldn't call anyone a moron, and I'm not offended or anything. I just get the impression that if you were trying to make a point, you' may need to work a little harder to do so now.

[Draft Dodger]

being PC as in the civil liberty morons in this thread who think someone overreacting to 14 people who fit the profile of a group known to attack Americans is racist or disruptive.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I'm one of the morons. I understand why the woman was nervous at first. I can't blame her. But if assurances from the flight crew that the air marshalls are watching the Syrians isn't enough to calm her down, she probably should not be flying, and she CERTAINLY shouldn't be writing articles about her paranoia.

[Draft Dodger]

okay Rambo. i'd like to see how fast you'd shit your pants once 14 terrorists stood up and said they were taking over the plane.

did this happen? I must have missed that part of the article. Much in the same way you missed the sarcastic tone of my post. (do I need to insert a smiley here to help?)

[Anthony]

who was being PC, exactly? they were watching the Syrians. they didn't intevene not because of PC, but becuase THEY WEREN'T FUCKING DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

you're a moron.

the 9/11 planes were taken down with only 5 terrorists who used the threat of a "bomb" to keep everyone at bay. they now know that we know we can't take any chances anymore, that there may be no "bomb", so i'm sure they'll have adjusted their tactics.

one tactic? using more than 5 terrorists on the plane.

say, like 14 terrorists.

you make comments after the fact. 20/20 is helpful. but when you're on the plane, seeing 14 men similar to the ones from 9/11 - if you panick then it's understandable. it's easy for you to make your posts from the comfort of you home, knowing after the fact that these men weren't terrorists. :rolleyes:

[Draft Dodger]

I guess I'm a moron two-times over now.

I did make the comments after the fact. so did the woman. 20/20 vision didn't help her out any. she still, even after having the facts, wrote an article about 14 Syrians doing a dry-run for the next terrorist attack. I find that to be dumb, irresponsible, irrational, and, yes, bigoted. you don't. that's life.

[Peregrine]

she still, even after having the facts, wrote an article about 14 Syrians doing a dry-run for the next terrorist attack.

But she got a lot of money, fame, and publicity out of it. Anything else aside, that's the true American way! :)

[dawgfan]

This seems like a bit of a scarecrow. I don't think either Farrah or myself are saying to completely ignore some white person running to the plane with fuses popping out of their shoes. My point was simply that unless we get direct intel on a specific person/event, assuming that the next attack in the air will not be done by a middle-eastern man is not wise. Prior history and the overall odds certainly favor that to be the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jul16.html

So this intel isn't specific enough for you, or you just don't agree with it so you dismiss it as being valid?

For the umpteenth time, I don't disagree with the premise that racial profiling of air travellers is a good thing, but I also don't think we should downplay the possibility that the next attack may not come from those that fit this profile.

After reading the last 10 comments, I'm not really sure what we are arguing anymore. I think everyone thinks that some degree of profiling is needed on flights. Everyone feels that people need to be vigilant to a point and everyone feels that (with the proper intel) anyone of any race could be the culprit.

The only distinction I can see is that half of us are branded racist.

What's being argued is that you and Farrah seem to be dismissing the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S.

[dawgfan]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I'm one of the morons. I understand why the woman was nervous at first. I can't blame her. But if assurances from the flight crew that the air marshalls are watching the Syrians isn't enough to calm her down, she probably should not be flying, and she CERTAINLY shouldn't be writing articles about her paranoia.

Exactly - you've echoed my feelings precisely.

[EagleFan]

Arles, I just want to make sure I understand...this position that you're taking now and the position that Farrah has taken all along is that certain groups are above suspicion and should never be watched? And that we should criticize those who do so? Because that is exactly what she wrote. And the inference is that certain groups (white women?) are incapable of such attacks.

And there's been a number of suicidal domestic terrorist attacks. We just didn't tag them as such...

One in particular was in Columbine. That was a suicide attack. Remember it? How about rampages at Post Offices? McDonalds? These also could easily be called terrorist attacks by disenfranchised US citizens. Want to think again that only certain groups in the world are capable of such attacks? And almost all of these were committed with the intention of never getting taken alive.

Frankly, this is some of the most ignorant or blatently racist crap I've seen posted on this board. I ABSOLUTELY resent the line of thinking that only Muslims are capable of such acts when history has proved, time and time again, that most any group is capable of such massacres when the right buttons are pushed. It's just plain ignorance and self-delusion to think otherwise.


There is a huge difference between someone snapping and going on a killnig spree and recruiting someone to do it. These radicals are bred from day one to do this sort of crap, which won't be the case for somone who is not in that group.

Joe Blow, who may be capable of going nuts and killing people, needs his own special reason to go over the edge. Some nut job recruiting for a terrorist group isn't what will do it.

Profile the average nut job and you will see that there is still a sense of patriotism that would keep them from going over this line. They feel that their killing spree is justified, and their's alone.

[Draft Dodger]

Exactly - you've echoed my feelings precisely.

a-ha! another PC moron!

:rolleyes:

[duckman]

There is a huge difference between someone snapping and going on a killnig spree and recruiting someone to do it. These radicals are bred from day one to do this sort of crap, which won't be the case for somone who is not in that group.

Joe Blow, who may be capable of going nuts and killing people, needs his own special reason to go over the edge. Some nut job recruiting for a terrorist group isn't what will do it.

Profile the average nut job and you will see that there is still a sense of patriotism that would keep them from going over this line. They feel that their killing spree is justified, and their's alone.
I believe they are recruiting eastern European muslims to carry put attacks because they can get under the radar better than their Arab counterparts.

[EagleFan]

you're a moron.

the 9/11 planes were taken down with only 5 terrorists who used the threat of a "bomb" to keep everyone at bay. they now know that we know we can't take any chances anymore, that there may be no "bomb", so i'm sure they'll have adjusted their tactics.

one tactic? using more than 5 terrorists on the plane.

say, like 14 terrorists.

you make comments after the fact. 20/20 is helpful. but when you're on the plane, seeing 14 men similar to the ones from 9/11 - if you panick then it's understandable. it's easy for you to make your posts from the comfort of you home, knowing after the fact that these men weren't terrorists. :rolleyes:


Yeah... What he said!!!

I've agreed with HA, it's the 7th sign.

[sabotai]

I don't disagree with the premise that racial profiling of air travellers is a good thing, but I also don't think we should downplay the possibility that the next attack may not come from those that fit this profile.

You say this like you are repeating yourself....wait a minute, you are! It amazes me how people on a message board can't read. I can't count how many times I've seen this, only to have it replied by Arles or Farrah or someone else acting like you just said the exact opposite.

This is why I try to stay out of these things. Because I know someone will read what they want to, not what I actually write.

I mean, how many times has Blackie or dawgfan said this, and here we are on page 3 with the other side continueing as if they haven't?

[Pumpy Tudors]

So are we doomed? Doomed to what, exactly? I'm curious.

[Blackadar]

You say this like you are repeating yourself....wait a minute, you are! It amazes me how people on a message board can't read. I can't count how many times I've seen this, only to have it replied by Arles or Farrah or someone else acting like you just said the exact opposite.

This is why I try to stay out of these things. Because I know someone will read what they want to, not what I actually write.

I mean, how many times has Blackie or dawgfan said this, and here we are on page 3 with the other side continueing as if they haven't?

1. Anyone who's trotting out the "this is so PC" hasn't read a fucking line I've written, so I won't even address that accusation.

2. Dawgfan nailed it perfectly: "What's being argued is that you and Farrah seem to be dismissing the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S."

Hell, I'd be nervous if I was on a flight with 14 Middle Eastern men. But should nothing come of it, I certainly wouldn't write a breathless, panic-stricken, inflamitory article that reads like it was a terrorism walk through when it was nothing more than a bunch of musicians. Nor would I have the audacity to insinuate in a message board that only Middle Eastern men are capable of a suicide terrorist attack.

If you don't think the attack could come from anywhere else, then you're either an ignorant racists or just plain ignorant...if the shoe fits, Arlie, then wear it.

[Maple Leafs]

the way I read this, you are actually backing up what Blacky is saying.Yes and no. I don't think he and I are that far off on this one. But at the same time, I think there's a distinction here.

The terrorists of 9/11, the shoe-bomber, the original WTC attack, the Cole bombing, etc... these guys didn't just happen to be of a certain group. They did what they did exactly because they identified with a certain group. And I think it's just plain silly to ignore that, although not everyone seems to agree.

Tim McVeigh happened to be a white guy, but the fact that he self-identified with that group didn't drive his actions, so making the comparison and demanding racial profiling of white trash from Oklahoma doesn't work.

Imagine you know the KKK is running around burning down black churches. Would it make sense to pay more attention to middle-aged white guys driving aimlessly around a chruch, or would you watch everyone equally, regardless of race? There comes a point where you have to consider the demographics of those involved--not because you're a bad guy, but because they've already made it part of the issue.

[Blackadar]

Yes and no. I don't think he and I are that far off on this one. But at the same time, I think there's a distinction here.

The terrorists of 9/11, the shoe-bomber, the original WTC attack, the Cole bombing, etc... these guys didn't just happen to be of a certain group. They did what they did exactly because they identified with a certain group. And I think it's just plain silly to ignore that, although not everyone seems to agree.

Tim McVeigh happened to be a white guy, but the fact that he self-identified with that group didn't drive his actions, so making the comparison and demanding racial profiling of white trash from Oklahoma doesn't work.

Imagine you know the KKK is running around burning down black churches. Would it make sense to pay more attention to middle-aged white guys driving aimlessly around a chruch, or would you watch everyone equally, regardless of race? There comes a point where you have to consider the demographics of those involved--not because you're a bad guy, but because they've already made it part of the issue.

Maple, I'm not sure I get your point - or you've missed mine entirely. No one has even suggested that we shouldn't profile likely suspects. Nor has anyone suggested that we profile "white trash from Oklahoma" due to McVeigh. Profiling is a valuable tool and I haven't said one word against it.

The whole discussion blew up when Arlie and Farrah said that some groups of people should not be suspects because they don't match the racial profile, even when their actions are enough to cause a disruption in the flight. That somehow, white women and others are above such things. They're also insinuating that writing that article is somehow a responsible piece of journalism rather than fear-mongering. And that the Air Marshalls would be acting neglegently in questioning her actions - primarily due to her race. That's where the line gets crossed from playing the odds to being racist.

Remember, my counter is that anyone causing a disruption is a suspect. That regardless of your race or country of origin, everyone has to be considered a potential terrorist. And that there's enough evidence to show that someone from any race or country of origin is capable of an atrocity.

[Maple Leafs]

Maple, I'm not sure I get your point - or you've missed mine entirely. No, I think the problem is that I went off on a bit of a tangent. I just find the "look at McVeigh" argument to be generally unrelated to the real debate here, and yet it seems to get tossed out almost immediately any time the discussion takes place. When I was reading the thread for the first time I was thinking "oh boy, who'll be first to throw McViegh's name out there" and you happened to be the lucky winner.

On the bigger issues covered in this thread, I'm not really in disagreement with you. I'm not sure that anyone here really is arguing that nobody outside of Middle Eastern males in their 20s and 30s should ever be looked at, but if that is their argument then clearly they're wrong. Any sort of profiling policy that looked only (as opposed to primarily) at one demographic group would be an invitation to disaster.

[Glengoyne]

You probably need to limit this to airplane related terrorist events. Otherwise, you have to consider Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, etc. And if you consider all of those, I'm not sure the race or ethnicity gets us anywhere. Limiting it to airplane hijackings (as I believe Arles did earlier) and I think your point is valid.
Most of those folks don't really have it in for American Civilians. They may have trageted innocent Americans, but Rudolph and Kaczynski at least somewhat precisely targeted their victims. McVeigh's "organization" isn't really into this type of terrorism. I don't think a lot of folks within that organization would have supported the actions taken in Okalhoma City. This war on Terrorism is a war with Islamic Militants. People of middle eastern descent understand this, and as long as the extra scrutiny they receive is reasonable, they shouldn't mind it. I'd rather see a few Arab men pulled aside and thoroughly searched, than a wife travelling with three children, or an elderly lady that requires a cane to walk. It may be profiling, but it is also common sense.

[Noop]

McVeigh's "organization" isn't really into this type of terrorism. I don't think a lot of folks within that organization would have supported the actions taken in Okalhoma City.
Are you a member?

[Arles]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jul16.html

So this intel isn't specific enough for you, or you just don't agree with it so you dismiss it as being valid?
The link is broken and I know of no direct profile for any US citizen being used. If the story says Al Qaeda could be using non-Middle Eastern people to help in their attacks, I'm not really sure how you prepare and/or profile that with any degree of accuracy.

For the umpteenth time, I don't disagree with the premise that racial profiling of air travellers is a good thing, but I also don't think we should downplay the possibility that the next attack may not come from those that fit this profile.
As I said, we should be vigiliant and keep our eyes open for anything. But I don't know of much preparation we can do to stop some random non-Middle Eastern person without more specific evidence on that type of person. So, for now, the best case is to prepare for the middle eastern profile but keep an eye out for all people.

What's being argued is that you and Farrah seem to be dismissing the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S.
If you add "in the air", that's close. I'm saying that, as a country, we should take steps to protect against the terrorist being middle-eastern because that's the best we can do at this point. However (for atleast the fourth time), that doesn't mean that air marshalls and others should never worry about other passengers if events dictate that in the air or we get specific intel on a new profile.

[Arles]

1. Anyone who's trotting out the "this is so PC" hasn't read a fucking line I've written, so I won't even address that accusation.

2. Dawgfan nailed it perfectly: "What's being argued is that you and Farrah seem to be dismissing the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S."

Hell, I'd be nervous if I was on a flight with 14 Middle Eastern men. But should nothing come of it, I certainly wouldn't write a breathless, panic-stricken, inflamitory article that reads like it was a terrorism walk through when it was nothing more than a bunch of musicians. Nor would I have the audacity to insinuate in a message board that only Middle Eastern men are capable of a suicide terrorist attack.

If you don't think the attack could come from anywhere else, then you're either an ignorant racists or just plain ignorant...if the shoe fits, Arlie, then wear it.
I'm trying hard, after going through this entire thread, to find the spot where either Farrah or myself completely dismissed "the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S."

The best I can find is two things:

1. That I continually say when taking steps to profile it is fruitless to focus on non-Middle Eastern men as the probabilities are not with that unless we get specific intel that says a different profile (ie, the 6-5 red-head example I gave). One of the reasons I stated it's a waste of time is that history has shown that for a US citizen to do an attack, "Almost always people like this have a direct target (not just the random US citizen) and often they choose not to die themselves in the process." So, again, trying to plan for what appears to be an extremely unlikely event from a historical perspective seems a little foolish. I do, however, go out of my way numerous times to state that this profiling should by no means impact the events on the flight. Here's a quote from one of my earlier posts:

All this can be done without showing a complete blind eye to other "oddballs" though. Just because an Air Marshall or flight attendent does some initial profiling (maybe making a probability list of likely terrorists) before the plan does not mean they don't do anything if things change throughout the flight.

2. Farrah and I both said that if the choice was between an air marshall worrying about 12 Syrians or a someone distraught woman a little frantic about the fact that 12 Syrians are acting a little odd on the plane, I think it's a higher percentage bet to worry about the Syrians.

If out of those two things you get that we are "dismissing the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S". Then it appears to me you are trying to twist the argument into what you would like it to be instead of what it actually is.

If I am indeed wrong, feel free to cite where I made the above claim.

[KWhit]

I'm trying hard, after going through this entire thread, to find the spot where either Farrah or myself completely dismissed "the possibility that people other than arabic/middle-eastern men could perpetrate the next terrorist attack on the U.S."



Farrah said:

The fact that this unnamed "source" even considered Jacobsen to be a decoy should scare everyone. The refusal to admit who the enemies really are, by anyone in the government for the sake of political correctness or not offending anyone is what is going to get more Americans killed. We're doomed.

And after Blackadar said "Farrah, white women can be suspects too," Farrah replied, "And which of those attackers you listed are white women? Let alone white women traveling with their families? None that I recall."


This implies that it is not a possibility for white women to commit an attack, right?

[Arles]

Farrah said:

The fact that this unnamed "source" even considered Jacobsen to be a decoy should scare everyone. The refusal to admit who the enemies really are, by anyone in the government for the sake of political correctness or not offending anyone is what is going to get more Americans killed. We're doomed.

And after Blackadar said "Farrah, white women can be suspects too," Farrah replied, "And which of those attackers you listed are white women? Let alone white women traveling with their families? None that I recall."

This implies that it is not a possibility for white women to commit an attack, right?
Again, I think Farrah was responding to the ambiguity of whether the air marshall should have focused on the frantic woman or 12 syrians as the main threat. It's the item I mentioned as point 2 above. I don't think she was saying that if the US got good Intel that a specific woman would involved and/or the air marshall witnessed the woman doing an open act of terror that he turn a blind eye.

Instead, that if there is ambiguity in the situation between two potential groups (12 syrians vs. a few distraught women), the smart money is on the Syrians being the threat and not the women. And Farrah mentions the historical actions of terrorism to back that up.

What's frustrating to people like me and Farrah is that many in this thread appear to say in the above case of ambiguity of two such groups on a plane, no distinction can be made on which is the more dangerous group once the flight starts and both act a little odd. That's what I think amazes Farrah and myself, especially given the recent events of terror that we know.

[KWhit]

I think what I and some others have a problem with is that you and Farrah are defending the article by this lady who even after having it proven to her that the people on the flight were just musicians, she still suggests that they might be terrorists - just terrorists who can play music, too.

Give me a break.

So not only do we need to be suspicious of any group of Muslim men, but we should also just assume that they are terrorists even when proven that they aren't.

All I have to say is that it would suck to be a Muslim in America right now.

[Joe Canadian]

Personally I think we should only assume that terroists are "brown people" and we should throw them all in jail! Then we'd be rid of this terrorism problem, and we can get back to throwing all the black people in jail for being gang members!!!!

:rolleyes:

[The above post is meant as a "troll" post, because I'm sick and tired of people who assume because I disagree with racial profiling I'm a liberal fairy moron, who likes to have multi-racial campfire sing-a-longs. I'm sorry but I think looking for suspicious people is much more usefull then automatically assuming that middle easterns on planes are terroists and because of that trying to match all their normal behavior to suspcious behavior since you've already made up your mind that they are terrorists.]

[Crapshoot]

I think what I and some others have a problem with is that you and Farrah are defending the article by this lady who even after having it proven to her that the people on the flight were just musicians, she still suggests that they might be terrorists - just terrorists who can play music, too.

Give me a break.

So not only do we need to be suspicious of any group of Muslim men, but we should also just assume that they are terrorists even when proven that they aren't.

All I have to say is that it would suck to be a Muslim in America right now.

What he said. Im not a liberal, but this idea that Jacobsen deserves to be taken seriously is bullshit, and racially motivated bullshit at that. And if you give the Al Queda leaders any credit for their planning, you can be sure that they would rather have this going on, further giving credence to their "us against them " strategy...

[Crapshoot]

btw, It is my sinciere belief that there are at least a few people who posted in this thread who ought not to ever fly Emirates (nicest airline in the world)- lord knows what they'd think, surrounded by Middle Eastern men in robes... :D

[Joe Canadian]

btw, It is my sinciere belief that there are at least a few people who posted in this thread who ought not to ever fly Emirates (nicest airline in the world)- lord knows what they'd think, surrounded by Middle Eastern men in robes... :D

Priceless! I would pay to see that!

[GrantDawg]

Personally I think we should only assume that terroists are "brown people" and we should throw them all in jail! Then we'd be rid of this terrorism problem, and we can get back to throwing all the black people in jail for being gang members!!!!

:rolleyes:

[The above post is meant as a "troll" post, because I'm sick and tired of people who assume because I disagree with racial profiling I'm a liberal fairy moron, who likes to have multi-racial campfire sing-a-longs. I'm sorry but I think looking for suspicious people is much more usefull then automatically assuming that middle easterns on planes are terroists and because of that trying to match all their normal behavior to suspcious behavior since you've already made up your mind that they are terrorists.]
I wouldn't admit that a post was "trolling." It is a good way to get put in the box.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Y'know, there are just all sorts of things about this incident that have gone relatively unmentioned in this thread. Among them:

1) The Scarborough Country report, which FW-R mentioned earlier, that indicates that these alleged musicians were traveling on expired visas. Granted, the Jacobsen's didn't know that, but if that's true, it seems to call into question the effectiveness of the notion of "we've checked them out & they're fine". For those who might be inclined to dismiss the report because of the source, I'll mention that the report, while appearing on SC was actually done by a reporter who works for WNBC-TV.
What he found is in the transcript at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5496938/

2) Another thing that hasn't been mentioned much is the lack of other info from those on the plane. I mean, you can find people willing to say they saw a UFO just to get on TV, doesn't it seem a little odd to anyone else that there hasn't been someone else on the plane looking to get their 15 minutes of fame by agreeing to be interviewed somewhere?

3) Speaking of conspicuously absent, where is the outrage & uproar that has accompanied previous incidents involving foreign musicians? A little web search will turn up complaints about denied visas & such as being just horrible in terms of the international music scene, but those quarters have been oddly quiet about this incident.

4) Where exactly where these guys playing anyway? Wouldn't you figure somebody could have put at least that part of the story together? But so far it doesn't appear anybody has found that little tidbit. Doesn't that make anybody the tiniest bit curious whether there job really existed?

5) For those who seem to find it amazing that anybody would consider for even a moment that this was some sort of "probe" by terrorists checking our security procedures, it might be interesting to note that this isn't the first time such an idea has surfaced. Okay, I'll conceed straightaway that the New York Post is not exactly the world's most credible news source, but it's their story at
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/23505.htm
Basically, even if it did show up in the Post, either the referenced police bulletin existed or it didn't. And if you believe it did, then the reporting source really isn't all that relevant AFAIC.

6) It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that, given the lack of comment from other passengers on the flight or from the musicians themselves for that matter, that this is all a publicity stunt by a writer from a publication that I'd bet 99.9% of us had ever heard of before this incident. Minus the quotes attributed to the various law enforcement sources, that'd be an even better bet. And even now I'm not convinced that this all went down quite the way we've heard so far, there's just too many little things that don't seem to add up evenly to me.

[Joe Canadian]

I wouldn't admit that a post was "trolling." It is a good way to get put in the box.

At least I admit it when I do... instead of masking the debate tactic of insulting someone's view as an actual factual argument. My post was meant as pure sarcasm... if it gets me in the box so be it (I doubt it will), but if it does... I really hope everyone guilty of all these insults that occurs so frequently in these political threads join me there.

Basiclly I'm sick of being labeled as a terroist supporter, or some weak, brainless, moron whenever I, or others, post an opinion. I don't support racial profiling, that doesn't make me a moron.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't support racial profiling, that doesn't make me a moron.

Not you specifically, but in pretty much any situation --
Wouldn't that be a matter of opinion?

[Peregrine]

Granted, the Jacobsen's didn't know that, but if that's true, it seems to call into question the effectiveness of the notion of "we've checked them out & they're fine".

I agree this is a serious issue, but it is basically separate from the issue they wrote about, since the author of the article couldn't check their visa status, and if action was going to be taken against them for immigration violations it wouldn't have anything to do with their behavior on the plane.

Where exactly where these guys playing anyway? Wouldn't you figure somebody could have put at least that part of the story together? But so far it doesn't appear anybody has found that little tidbit. Doesn't that make anybody the tiniest bit curious whether there job really existed?


From the article at the top of the thread:

"Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story.

“We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent.

“We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said."

[JonInMiddleGA]

From the article at the top of the thread:

"Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story.

“We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent.

“We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said."

Would those be the same agents who verified that these guys were okay ... without checking the dates on their visas?

(FTR, I wasn't clear about what I was referring to when I said the claim hadn't been verified. I meant by the media or some other outside source, not by law enforcement. I should have been clearer in my post & I wasn't)

[Arles]

I think what I and some others have a problem with is that you and Farrah are defending the article by this lady who even after having it proven to her that the people on the flight were just musicians, she still suggests that they might be terrorists - just terrorists who can play music, too.
I was only responding to her initial fear and activity of calling over the flight attendent a few times. By no means is my understanding of those actions an endorsement for some slight odd conclusions she makes in her article.

So not only do we need to be suspicious of any group of Muslim men, but we should also just assume that they are terrorists even when proven that they aren't.
OK, I see the point here. I've been looking at the in-flight activities of this woman, not the post writeup that she did. There are certainly some aspects of that which are over the top. But, given what she knew during the flight, I don't see her activities as being all that unreasonable.

If you believe the other people quoted on this, many of the people in the flight had no clue that this woman was worried (including one of the flight attendents). Only a few of the flight attendents and the air marshall knew of her fears. That doesn't sound like some frantic woman screaming on the plane.

[EagleFan]

Basiclly I'm sick of being labeled as a terroist supporter, or some weak, brainless, moron whenever I, or others, post an opinion. I don't support racial profiling, that doesn't make me a moron.

I think somebody needs a vallium.

Oh, and it's profiling. Race is just one factor in any kind of profiling so it would be moronic to throw out race as part of the entire profile if that can be specifically attached to a profile (such as the fact that NO SUICIDE HIJACKERS HAVE EVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN MIDDLE EASTERN ISLAMIC RADICALS as of today. If this ever changes, then the profile will change to reflect that.).

[dawgfan]

4) Where exactly where these guys playing anyway? Wouldn't you figure somebody could have put at least that part of the story together? But so far it doesn't appear anybody has found that little tidbit. Doesn't that make anybody the tiniest bit curious whether there job really existed.

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

Thank you, that appears to answer at least one question.

[Blackadar]

6) It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that, given the lack of comment from other passengers on the flight or from the musicians themselves for that matter, that this is all a publicity stunt by a writer from a publication that I'd bet 99.9% of us had ever heard of before this incident. Minus the quotes attributed to the various law enforcement sources, that'd be an even better bet. And even now I'm not convinced that this all went down quite the way we've heard so far, there's just too many little things that don't seem to add up evenly to me.

Jon, I missed this the first time around, but it does seem strange that there's been no other sources on this. Again, this goes back to my comments about perhaps this not being "reputable journalism".

[Joe Canadian]

I think somebody needs a vallium.

Oh, and it's profiling. Race is just one factor in any kind of profiling so it would be moronic to throw out race as part of the entire profile if that can be specifically attached to a profile (such as the fact that NO SUICIDE HIJACKERS HAVE EVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN MIDDLE EASTERN ISLAMIC RADICALS as of today. If this ever changes, then the profile will change to reflect that.).


Another dismissive remark... oh well.

My problem with racial profiling is that it limits peoples suspicion. When people see 10 "brown people", because they don't have to be Middle Eastern they just have to look that way, on a plane they jump to conclusions and start matching their behavior, no matter how normal, to suspcious behavior. Instead of occupying our time looking for people who are actually acting suspcious we waste our time limiting ourselves to one race of people.... But thats ok because generally people are lazy and can't get past the color of peoples skin.

You're 100% right most of these instinces are done my Middle Easterns... But why do we have to limit oursleves like this, instead of looking for people that are actually acting suspcious? Do we have to wait till a white women kills thousands of people and then say... Opps she didn't look like a terrorist, how were we supposed to know.

[JAG]

The problem is not even so much who to target, but the fact that security still sucks and is inconsistent between airports. My wife, who works for US Airways and thus takes a lot of flights, just today discovered that she had been carrying a pocket knife with her for a while. And she's gone through the detailed 'random' (which by the way, is not so random as you might think)screening process at least two times that I know of. I realize it can never be 100% effective, but the system still has a ways to go in my mind.

[Crapshoot]

The problem is not even so much who to target, but the fact that security still sucks and is inconsistent between airports. My wife, who works for US Airways and thus takes a lot of flights, just today discovered that she had been carrying a pocket knife with her for a while. And she's gone through the detailed 'random' (which by the way, is not so random as you might think)screening process at least two times that I know of. I realize it can never be 100% effective, but the system still has a ways to go in my mind.

Wait, you're telling me that the "random" searches I undergo every time, being a 6 foot brown fellow with a goatee aren't really random ? :D

[NoMyths]

Wait, you're telling me that the "random" searches I undergo every time, being a 6 foot brown fellow with a goatee aren't really random ? :DI also am pulled aside for "additional screening" every time I fly, which was quite a bit last year. Being a fairly average-looking white male, it's always something I wonder about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I also am pulled aside for "additional screening" every time I fly, which was quite a bit last year. Being a fairly average-looking white male, it's always something I wonder about.

There are a number of factors that increase your odds of being pulled for additional screening. Among them (in no particular order):

1) Flying one-way
2) Paying cash for your ticket(s)
3) Being a male flying alone
4) Booking less than 48-72 hours before your departure

#1,3,and 4 combined to make me a very popular guy with the security folks during a last-minute, multi-city business trip last year.

[Danny]

There are a number of factors that increase your odds of being pulled for additional screening. Among them (in no particular order):

1) Flying one-way
2) Paying cash for your ticket(s)
3) Being a male flying alone
4) Booking less than 48-72 hours before your departure


This makes sense. I almost never fly alone. Never pay cash. Am not traveling one way and do not book less than 48-72 hours before departure.

I've probably been on a plane 40 times since 9/11 and have only been checked once.

[NoMyths]

There are a number of factors that increase your odds of being pulled for additional screening. Among them (in no particular order):

1) Flying one-way
2) Paying cash for your ticket(s)
3) Being a male flying alone
4) Booking less than 48-72 hours before your departure

#1,3,and 4 combined to make me a very popular guy with the security folks during a last-minute, multi-city business trip last year.#3 is the only one on the list I qualify for. Ah, well.

[Samdari]

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

It is frightening to me that they are counting on this idea to help security of flights. My 'home' airport is National, so almost every flight I take has federal air marshalls. It is very easy to figure out who they are. I am kind of stunned to learn that they are trying to keep them anonymous. They are not trying very hard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It is very easy to figure out who they are. I am kind of stunned to learn that they are trying to keep them anonymous. They are not trying very hard.

Yeah, having them show up at the airport in an unmarked Ford Fairmont is kind of a dead giveaway :D

[duckman]

It is frightening to me that they are counting on this idea to help security of flights. My 'home' airport is National, so almost every flight I take has federal air marshalls. It is very easy to figure out who they are. I am kind of stunned to learn that they are trying to keep them anonymous. They are not trying very hard.
Many of the air marshalls are complaining about this and are asking to have the regulations changed. They know that they are easily picked out and want to be able to wear more casual clothes, grow their hair out, and maybe even let them grow less conservative facial hair.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't get the argument here. The air marshalls were looking at the Syrians (who did nothing wrong), and also were looking out for the hysterical woman who could have given them away. I dunno about you guys, but I'd rather not have anyone give away the federal air marshalls on board... even if they are 'easy' to pick out, you still have some doubt as to whether to actually are air marshalls.

I've always been a proponent of checking out suspicious people, not just because they are brown. Sometimes race can be a good factor, but a lot of times having the ability to use race as a factor leads to abuses in authority (think of 'Driving While Black' stops).

[clintl]

This whole episode seems to me to be a case of the authorities doing basically what they're supposed to do, but one freaked out passenger who happened to be a writer not realizing all that was going on behind the scenes and publishing a hysterical account without doing any follow-up investigation. The Syrians were checked out before the flight. They were checked out during the flight. They were checked out after the flight. In every case, their actions were innocent, and they were found to be exactly who they represented themselves to be. How much more surveillance do we really need? When you put the whole story together, I don't think that there is all that much to be alarmed about, except maybe better procedures by the airline crew to reassure that things are under control, and calm passengers who are concerned.

[duckman]

I don't think that there is all that much to be alarmed about, except maybe better procedures by the airline crew to reassure that things are under control, and calm passengers who are concerned.
After I read that I kept seeing the scene from Airplane where the passengers were lining up to beat on the hysterical passenger. :D

[ISiddiqui]

How much more surveillance do we really need?

My thoughts exactly. Do we have to handcuff them to their seats because they may try something funny?

[Subby]

Her second article seemed much more offensive to me than her first. Her first was pretty visceral - understandable, I supposed considering what she thought she had gone through.

The second article, however - just seemed mean-spirited and conspiriatorial...

[yabanci]

I get the feeling that this woman is very, very bitter now that her 15 minutes of fame is expiring. Over the course of a week or so she went from being a brave whistleblower who revealed a breathtaking first person account of the authorities' incompetent reaction to a band of evil terrorists doing a "dry run" hijacking of an American airliner, just like Ann Coulter warned, to now being exposed as a paranoid, bigoted yenta living in a Fox News Channel induced fantasy world.

[Abe Sargent]

All I know is, if a chick from the IRA bitch-smacked a plane because the Air Marshals were spending all their time focused on the 15 Syrian musicians, we'd have had upraor in this country, you can believe that.

-Anxiety

[Drake]

I get the feeling that this woman is very, very bitter now that her 15 minutes of fame is expiring. Over the course of a week or so she went from being a brave whistleblower who revealed a breathtaking first person account of the authorities' incompetent reaction to a band of evil terrorists doing a "dry run" hijacking of an American airliner, just like Ann Coulter warned, to now being exposed as a paranoid, bigoted yenta living in a Fox News Channel induced fantasy world.

That is a beautiful post. Can I borrow "a paranoid, bigoted yenta living in a Fox News Channel induced fantasy world" for my next argument with my wife?

[QuikSand]

That is a beautiful post. Can I borrow "a paranoid, bigoted yenta living in a Fox News Channel induced fantasy world" for my next argument with my wife?

And the obligatory follow-up question:

Can I, uh, stay on your couch?

[Drake]

Hmm. Good point.

[sterlingice]

That's great stuff! I had lost hope after about 15 posts in, this thread devolved into "you're a racist bastard"-"you're a moron itching to be blown up" but yabanci, Drake, and Quik- that was awesome :D

SI

[CamEdwards]

an interesting followup can be found here: http://www.heatherwilhelm.com/Heather_Wilhelm_dot_com--Nour_Mehana.html

Nour Mehana, the "Syrian Wayne Newton," has finally hit the big time.* After
days of fevered speculation, Mehana has been outed as the mysterious Syrian music-maker who, along with his band, set Northwest Airlines Flight 327 into a tizzy over a feared terrorist "dry run."**

For many, this discovery was a massive relief.* In fact, one look at Mehana's
publicity photos set many minds at ease.* This man, a terrorist?* A man who
sings with a goofy Syrian band, plays in shady casinos, and has a cheesy
porn-style mustache?* That silly woman Annie Jacobsen!* Aren't we all so silly and paranoid?******

Mr. Mehana has a nice little song on his recent CD, by the way.* It's
called "Um El Shaheed."**

In English, that's "Mother of a Martyr."****

I noticed "Um El Shaheed" on Nour Mehana's web site.* "Shaheed," I knew,
meant "martyr," but that was as far as my Arabic could go.* Since
martyrdom seemed an odd topic for a casino crooner, I called the Middle East Media Research Institute. I spoke with Aluma Dankowtiz, who is fluent in Arabic, to find out exactly what Mr. Mehana has to say.**

"Mother of a Martyr" glorifies the death of a young Palestinian.* Mehana sings to a grieving mother that she should not be sad, because her son, who died as a martyr, is a hero.* She should be happy that her son is gone, Mehana croons, because freeing Palestine and the Golan Heights are heroic goals.* The song, which starts slow and solemn, ends with a triumphant chorus, celebrating the martyr's glorious death:* "Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar!"**

Feel better?* Somehow, after "Mother of a Martyr," that Wayne Newton porn-
style mustache becomes slightly less comforting.* Hey, is anyone ready to jump onto a plane with Mr. Mehana and his wacky band?**

As Ms. Wilhelm points out, it doesn't make Mr. Mehana a terrorist, but you'd think a background check, coupled with the fact that thirteen of them had expired visas, would be some cause for alarm. There seems to be a concerted effort to paint Ms. Jacobsen as a weirdo or a freak, but the bottom line is this: she was right about one thing. 13 of those men should not have been on board that plane, and yet they were.

[duckman]

13 of those men should not have been on board that plane, and yet they were.
I agreed wholeheartedly.

[SirFozzie]

yet she reacted, overreacted and then overover reacted