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

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Thanks, duck.

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

I thought I be civil today.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

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.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Tim McVeigh, anyone?

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

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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".

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'll give this what it deserves.

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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?

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

............ 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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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

Seems like we have few of those on this board.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[sabotai]

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

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

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]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

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]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

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]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

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?)