When the news came out regarding the “flying Imams” incident, everyday Americans hailed the actions of the flight crew and citizens for confronting those responsible for the “dry run” of terror.
Flying Imams:
“According to some passengers and flight staff, a number of whom didn't identify themselves, the suspicious behavior of the imams included the following:
The imams refused to sit in their assigned seats. Instead, it is claimed that they fanned out in the cabin, sitting in pairs close to the front, middle and rear exit rows.
• Shahin and the two imams seated in Coach Row 9 requested seatbelt extensions (a strap with large metal buckles normally used by obese individuals to lengthen their seatbelts) even though flight staff say none seemed to need it. They then placed the extensions on the cabin floor in front of them instead of attaching them to their seatbelt.
• Three of the imams traveled with no checked baggage and one-way tickets.
• According to a nearby passenger who spoke Arabic, the two imams sitting in the back of the plane, while speaking to each other in Arabic, mentioned Osama bin Laden and condemned America for "killing Saddam".
After the out-of-court settlement was announced in 2009, a USA Today editorial called the imams' lawsuit "troubling", and stated that the lawsuit's conclusion could lead "others to act out in hopes of cashing in", and might prevent "passengers from speaking up, or airline crews from acting, when they have reasonable suspicions.”
The settlement and subsequent language by the Judge in the case is just as troubling!
“In the concluding paragraph of this key part of her decision, Montgomery stated:
"Unquestionably the events of 9/11 changed the calculus in the balance American society chooses to make, especially in airport settings, between liberty and security. Ultimately, the proper balance will be achieved, in large part, because we have the most capable and diligent law enforcement and intelligence communities in the world. But when a law enforcement officer exercises the power of the Sovereign over its citizens, she or he has a responsibility to operate within the bounds of the Constitution and cannot raise the specter of 9/11 as an absolute exception to that responsibility. “
In an eerie prophetic observation in the article about the lawsuit settlement the author of the Weekly Standard he states:
“The decision raises perhaps an even more basic question: What was law enforcement to do? Judge Montgomery believes the authorities were required to release the imams after a brief investigatory stop to go on their way and catch their flight or board another. The next time around, it will be the imams who fly and the other passengers who stay behind.”
Now, almost 3 years later to the day, another incident even more troubling occurred and as a result of the above Imam incident it was under-reported or not reported at all, ostensibly to avoid being sued.
The incident:
On November 17 an AirTran flight from Atlanta to Houston was preparing to take off after the boarding of 73 passengers. 13 of those passengers were dressed in Muslim garb. Two of the 13 Muslims took seats in first class (front of the plane) while other 11 took various seats in the rear.
Most of the men had carry-on luggage that was stowed in overhead compartments!
So far, so good, right. There were no concerns from the flight crew or passengers about the 13 Muslim looking men, just another flight that did not “profile” for religious reasons.
Once seated, cabin sealed for departure, the plane began its taxi for takeoff. Almost immediately, and if by cue, one of the two Muslims seated in the first class section began to talk loudly on a cell phone, in Arabic that actually competed with the stewardess on the PA going over safety to the passengers.
Simultaneous to the Arabic speaking first class passenger cell phone call another Muslim seated in the rear had his cell phone ring and began a conversation.
Immediately two attendants went forward and aft to demand the men shut off their electronic devices.
So far, so good, right? Just a little over zealous, tech savvy Muslims in the 20th century making and taking calls. The other passengers are still unconcerned, but probably annoyed that a couple of Yahoo’s using electronic devices at the time they shouldn’t.
Now, at the same time this annoyance is occurring in the front and rear of the plane, two other Muslim men stand up in the center of the aircraft sporting hand held camcorders.
So far, not so good, right? A coordinated effort is unfolding by 4 of the 13 men (at least to the casual observer because they are all in Muslim garb and there cannot be a mistake of their identities) that started to worry some of the other passengers.
Quickly unfolding, the other remaining Muslims all get up out of their seats simultaneously and some began taking cell phone camera shots of passengers while others began to sing in Arabic, loudly.
At this point I must say, if Muslims do not want to be “religiously profiled” or “racially profiled” or “Jihadistly profiled” they shouldn’t act in a manner that is so obvious. One can safely assume one or two things are occurring.
1) 13 Muslim men are conducting a terror dry run, or
2) 13 Muslim men are setting up another future lawsuit to further diminish security capabilities of the airlines and Homeland Security.
As a result of this “onboard emergency” the aircraft returns to the gate and the 13 individuals are removed, along with their luggage to be questioned by the FAA, TSA and FBI.
It was then found that their baggage contained nothing dangerous (after searching) and that all 13 men were acquainted with each other (surprise, surprise).
So far, So good, right? The passengers that were not removed sat on the plane awaiting another attempt at takeoff after this stressful situation when they noticed that 11 of the 13 Muslim men re-boarded the aircraft. Some of the passengers and flight crew who were shaken by the earlier incident refused to continue with them and got off the plane. Boy, talk about blatent racism and insensitivity.
So far, so good, right? During the flight, two of the Muslim men that were removed, questioned and returned to the plane moved a “stowed bag” from one section of the plane and placed it in another (where it was well away from his assigned seat) while the second Muslim spoke loudly in Arabic. The plane landed, but their mission was accomplished.
This incident was not reported in the MSM for obvious legal reasons – fear of being sued!
I think it is time for anti-PC activity. Next time a large group of Muslim men board a plane perhaps anyone who does not wish to be sued in a later court of law for an event that may or may not take place, should just deplane and catch a subsequent flight.
That’s right, I said it! Profile for your legal and personal wellbeing (sanity or otherwise).
No comments:
Post a Comment