Just kind of wanted to get Hatrack's reaction. It's about a woman who believes she may have witnessed a dry run for a bombing on a recent Northwest Airlines flight, and the relevant security procedures that did not prevent or address the situation.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The author quotes Ann Coulter, who is an unabashed liberal-hater and toer of the Right Line. The author basically says outright that anti-discrimination practices are what will stop us from being able to catch terrorists.
What about this racist drivel is interesting?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just intern them and ship them to Syria to be tortured? It happens, and we never see a word of it on the US news. I think the author is committing a mixture of both being less than truthful and spreading paranoia and doubt with circumstantial evidence.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the fact is that as an American you should choose liberty over innocent lives. Why is that? Whats the point of living in a police state, yes that one little law here that little intrusion isn't an issue now, but don't think of the now so much as the future. How will that little law get manipulated in the future etc.
Though I will say this my friend accidently had left two full 9mm pistol mags and a full 5.56 mag in his carryon when he went to the airport and wasn't caught until his third layover and he wasn't trying to be sneaky. That should give you an idea how good security is.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, you're being rude. I don't think PSI was implying anything of the sort. I'd be suspicious of any men as described, no matter what ethnicity they were.
posted
I'm not saying that all Muslims are suspicious, but I do worry that we're so afraid of offending someone that we will NOT search an obviously suspicious person or group of people.
And where is the law that says they can't hold more than two white people for secondary questioning?
For the record, I do not think that Muslims should undergo any more screening or testing than anyone else. Unless they are acting suspicious. Then they should be rigorously screened, just as anyone else would.
quote:Pay attention more. I heard about this in the U.S. news a LONG time ago.
And how many times have you heard of Arab people who became US nationals having their rights revoked due to uncertainty and suspicion? Sure, there was the case in 2002 with those few young men in Florida, but after that debacle, no more national cases were reported. Those young men got kicked out of their last medical internship because they were suspected of being terrorists simply because they were of Arab descent. Yet we get little to no reporting of incidents after that, though they invariably happened. Just like Mr. Arar's case was just one of the incidents where US government internment led to the torture and holding of people without giving them any rights.
I'm saying that the article linked here is doing worse than just giving one side of the picture, that it's advocating the very behavior that has created embarassments for the US government to begin with. That the article is unscrupulously spreading fear, suspicion, and doubt based on a single incident with no coverage of the many more incidents that have happened on the other side of the coin. The bias is clear, and it stinks of racism.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
White people are also terrorists. I agree with Black Fox that the ideal balance makes sure we are in much less danger from our own government than from potential terrorists. Freedom matters a lot. However, it has some inherent risks.
I had the experience of accidentally forgetting my other pocket knife in my purse when I flew, and discovering it only after I arrived.
Security is weird. I'm not positive any security I've even known worked really well. Somehow it's not possible unless the threat is a lot higher. If we had bombs going off every week or so, then we might be able to have truly effective security. Otherwise things always always get lax.
Also, the real aim of security is to make people feel better, so having a big show of security which is actually totally ineffective seems to be the norm. Richard Feynmann pointed this out when he worked at Los Alamos, by cracking the silly locks they put on everything easily. The solution? Get new more effective locks? No. They all were told to change their combinations any time Richard Feynman had been in their office. Also there was the story he told of the military brass who had the side of the building removed in order to bring in a super safe to his office, then never bothered to reset the factory combination. <laughs> Such things are typical of high security systems.
Another security system they instituted in a computer place where I worked once had key cards for door access. One of the programmers routinely used his card to slip between the door and the frame and jimmy the lock. He said it was faster and easier than putting the card into the security slot. <laughs>
My brother worked as a network troubleshooter at a large hospital, and said if you have a bored enough expression on your face, you can get in anywhere with a hand truck and take anything anytime for "repair". One time he was breaking into a telephone closet, (as they had to do routinely because Maintenance kept the keys and they wouldn't respond to their requests to let them in to run computer cabling), and a doctor (who are like the gods of the hospital) walked up and said, "what are you doing?". Mikie replied deadpan, "I'm breaking into this telephone closet here." And the doctor said something like, "very well, carry on," and walked away. <laughs>
[ July 20, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love it that the ads here are for airline tickets. I wonder if google has any heuristics for determining what thread topics constitute good rather than bad advertising for the particular product.
If they were really smart, for instance, they'd have survival gear and underground bunkers and stuff advertised here. <grins>
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Problem there is that the people selling those things are the least likely to be selling them online...and even less likely to use google adsense . Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming the story is true, please explain how it is racist?
1. It only makes mention of Arab men as being capable of terrorism. not true 2. It claims that groups with suspected terrorist activities are not able to be investigated if the number of Arab participants is over two. not true 3. Even if the report of the FBI (and other organizational) investigation is fact, the author's account is highly dubious and completely circumstantial. In fact, for her to have gotten such a detailed account of their goings-on behind her, she would have had to have been watching them like a hawk from the start. With a child in tow and being in a crowded plane, this is highly unlikely. untrustworthy witness account, just like the majority of eyewitness accounts 4. The stewardess saying that air marshalls were onboard is ludicrous. Not that them being aboard is ludicrous, but the secretive mention and the level of disclosure was. sounds more like a feature film script than reality 5. Once again, the constant insistence throughout the whole article, even after the account, that Arab men should be required stricter policies in terminal security is blatantly advocating prejudice.
So, it's not even that whether the story is true or not is the determiner of the racism in the article, but how the story was used, how the point of view is skewing most of the facts, and the whole point of the article itself, that makes it racist. It is advocating treating one ethnic group more harshly or strictly with regards to security than others. That is racist. No matter how many ways you put it, favoring one or many ethnic groups over one or more of another is still racism.
The issue is much more adequately examined when looked at from both sides. That article doesn't even consider the other side, and in fact makes the other side out to be meaningless in the face of security. That it not only ignores the other side of the coin but marginalizes it is why I call it racist.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tricky subject. Not all Arabs are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Arab. But most of the 9/11 terrorists were single Arab men.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's telling a story of one particular incident. Whatever the race of these men, there actions as described were suspicious. You can discount it all you want, or disbelieve it. Either she's lying about the investigation or she's not. But if she's not, then she wasn't the only one suspicious. You're original conclusion, which rests on your suspicions about the inaccuracy of the article, is unsupported by the reasons listed here.
She also mentions other weaknesses in airline security, unrelated to race (orthopedic shoes, for one).
Your arguments about not including the "other side" are specious. Under that policy, every article about any subject has to touch on every possible aspect of that subject. Considering your stance on homosexual marriage and polygamy being unrelated, I know you don't subscribe to that theory on other topics. Why this one?
When I read your second post ("Because all arab men are terrorists?"), I knew I shouldn't have even bothered discussing this with you. PSI said nothing like that. Why this insistence on turning other people's statements into inaccurate caricatures?
posted
The thing that struck me is that the trip was anchored in Detroit, which is where one of the highest middle eastern populations in the country is. It is highly likely that a band from Detroit could be chartered for some rich person's entertainment in LA.
quote:Every "suspicious activity" that she dramatically brings up could easily be shown to be completely innocent.
Until the overt criminal act occurs, every criminal's actions could be shown to be completely innocent. It's a pattern of things to look at, and the reaction is supposed to be proportional to the amount of suspicion raised by the pattern.
posted
How effective do you expect airport security to be when it's run by rent-a-cops?
If you ever had any illusions as to the ability of rentacops - apply at a security agency. It will disabuse you of that notion pretty quickly.
As to the rest - should tighter screening be in place? Yes. Should we target a specific demographic? I wouldn't be opposed to it - depending on the nature of the screening since we are trying to deter a specific group of hostiles.
However, specific screening has a limited effectiveness at best - at some point, the terrorists are going to use fake passports from countries other than the "hostile nations" and will adopt fake names that won't flag computer profiles.
posted
I'm not up on the mythos of Ann Coulter. Is there some kind of site kept where we can find out who we shouldn't listen to? Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's telling a story of one particular incident.
And then implying that this particular incident, of which her testimony is dubious at best, is the mean by which all such incidents should be judged. That is why it is tripe.
quote:ever the race of these men, there actions as described were suspicious.
No, they were actions that could have easily been explained away by giving more than her own paranoid point of view.
quote:You can discount it all you want, or disbelieve it. Either she's lying about the investigation or she's not.
This is golden. You shift from talking about her account to the alleged investigation, of which she had no part of and no official capacity whatsoever. Odd that you forget to mention that little detail, which would pretty much blow her biased account out of the water.
quote:You're original conclusion, which rests on your suspicions about the inaccuracy of the article, is unsupported by the reasons listed here.
Wrong. You are assuming that the whole validity of the article rests on whether there was an investigation or not. I am saying that her biased account, and then the use of her biased account to advocate inequal treatment according to ethnicity is why it is racist.
It's ironic that you go on to accuse me of putting words or intentions in others' mouths.
quote:She also mentions other weaknesses in airline security, unrelated to race (orthopedic shoes, for one).
Orthopedic shoes worn by a Arab man.
quote:Your arguments about not including the "other side" are specious. Under that policy, every article about any subject has to touch on every possible aspect of that subject. Considering your stance on homosexual marriage and polygamy being unrelated, I know you don't subscribe to that theory on other topics. Why this one?
What the hell does my stance on homosexual marriage and polygamy have to do with this? Homosexuals are not polygamists, and polygamists are not homosexuals. However, Arab men are Arab men, and profiling is still racist. This article leaves out the exponentially larger number of cases where Arabs are mistreated and discriminated, only to make a case that Arabs should be discriminated against. I'm not trying to connect two unrelated issues, I'm calling for an examination of all the facts of a single one. Your attempt to try to "prove" me a hypocrite in this matter is what is specious. Instead of actually addressing the issue, you bring up something else and try to turn it into a character issue about me. Ridiculous.
quote:When I read your second post ("Because all arab men are terrorists?"), I knew I shouldn't have even bothered discussing this with you. PSI said nothing like that. Why this insistence on turning other people's statements into inaccurate caricatures?
I am not attacking PSI. I'm attacking the article originally linked. If PSI agrees with me, then that's fine. I have not called PSI a racist, or said that PSI believes anything PSI does not.
Why don't you stop trying to play hero or find creative ways to insult me, and actually address the issues I pointed out in that article that clearly make it racist?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because 1 and 5 are just wrong, 2 is irrelevant, and 3 and 4 are grouped as your accusations of inaccuracy for which you have no basis but suspicion.
Your remark was in response to PSI's post. Neither the article nor PSI said all "arab men are terrorists."
This article relayed one person's account of one incident. It has evidently been picked up by other news organizations and corroborated, at least somewhat. The author was unhappy with the response to this particular incident, and used the incident to question the overall level of airline safety. It is a complete article that does not require an enumeration of America's mistreatment of Arab men.
Dagonee
Edit: I forgot this gem: "Homosexuals are not polygamists, and polygamists are not homosexuals."
Sure. The fact that both issues have to do with redefining marriage is just not important, is it?
I propose coining a new Internet Law, called "Aja's Law", that automatically rejects any article using Ann Coulter as a respectable source. It would be like Godwin's Law, stating that any argument in which a party is likened to Hitler or the Nazis is automatically over.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Godwin's Law come into affect if Hitler is used as an example, but nobody is compared to him?
For example, to support the idea that violence is sometimes necessary, one might say "Would it have been a good or a bad thing if Hitler and the Nazis took control of all of Europe in the 1940s? It would have been bad. The world is a much better place because the U.S. fought a war."
Is that a cheap shot, or a legitimate point?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not up on the mythos of Ann Coulter. Is there some kind of site kept where we can find out who we shouldn't listen to?
Yah, Ann Coulter will tell you exactly who you should read or not... Check it out!
Wow, this was an interesting story. Sounds like the air crew and air marshall (what was up with telling an unknown passenger that there were marshalls on board?) team knew what was up but had nothing to act upon. Think about this. 14 patsies go on and imitate the actions of assembling a bomb. What is the best thing to do? Do you stop them , revealing the air marshall, how they look, react etc. or do you watch and learn the process that is being used? It didn't sound like the ace terrorists were very subtle since even a non-trained passenger saw everything.
More scary was the news I heard about al Qaeda drafting non-middle eastern US citizens to their ranks. What if there were 14 middle eastern men making a huge play of things (running finger across throat and saying "no" in English when the rest of the time they were speaking in Arabic?...sunglasses? Everyone standing up at once? Paging Captain Obvious) but then there were non-Middle Easter folks watching to see how everyone reacts? Everyone's eyes were on the prize and the obvious. Who would have noticed the german descendent American with blonde hair and blue eyes watching the proceedings, seeing who would signal who, who the airline attendants were giving glances to, etc.
I don't want to construct any more of a James Bond plot out of it, but there is clearly more to what is going on in the eyes of this reporter (beyond her quoting a demagogue in Coulter, of course). What it is, we will never know.
I think it points to universal precautions being taken, not the suggested racial profiling from this author. Treat everyone as a suspected terrorist and you are likely to catch one. Sucks, but thems the break. You have a bag? Search it. You wear prosthetics? Check it. I think they are balancing the need for security and customer complaints of taking too long...can't have it both ways.
Maybe as a solution is to have each airline do its own security check by personnel on the flight...chances are, if you are going to be on that flight, you are going to do a better job ensuring that it is safe.
Who knows. I also appreciate Black Fox and his point...it is dangerous to live in an open democracy...and if you want to continue to do so, you have to live with those risks. Good food for thought.
Either way, we are setting ourselves up for a sneak attack by folks not of middle eastern descent if we get into profiling. Sure, the last attack on US soil was done by middle eastern men but the largest one before that? A couple of white guys.
Does the author lead to the conclusion that Arab people are not checked enough through security? Yes, she does. Does the author use separate statements, including quotes from Ann Coulter (hardly unbiased), to lead to a conclusion that Arabs should be checked more? Yes, she does. You may opine that she is saying something different, but considering the other parts of the article, not just the personal account, the fact that she leads to the conclusion that Arabs are not properly checked in airline security is pretty obvious. No example of lax security is actually given, despite the personal (exaggerated) story. Even in the story, there is no evidence of actual lax security, just that there was supposedly an ongoing investigation. So, the conclusion the author comes to without providing any basis in reality is based solely on ethnicity, which is racist.
quote:2 is irrelevant
No, this is one statement used by the author to claim that airline security is hindered in some way to stop terrorist attacks. The fact that the author's claim is an outright misrepresentation of a policy that has nothing to do with hindering security is an example of how this article is racist. Just because you don't want to consider it does not make it irrelevant.
quote:and 3 and 4 are grouped as your accusations of inaccuracy for which you have no basis but suspicion
No, 3 and 4 are typical examples of how eyewitness accounts are often over-dramatized, inaccurate, and tend to be full of hearsay where even the most ridiculous of statements can't be corroborated. Were the account given by the author a compilation of more than just one person, more weight could be given to the testimony. Instead, the author makes the attempt to tie in the personal account as if it has weight with the supposed investigation that went on. However, the only fact that is given in her account about the FBI and other law enforcement involvement is that they were there, they questioned her and her husband and that was it. The author makes it seem like her answering questions to the FBI was the critical piece of evidence to catch the bad guys, though no mention of any bad guys being caught, only Syrian passports in one official's hands.
In essence, the whole "experience" that the author puts to story rings of pointed racism on her part, and a tendancy to exaggerate her involvement.
quote:Your remark was in response to PSI's post. Neither the article nor PSI said all "arab men are terrorists."
My remark was made in context of the article. PSI's comment about hurting feelings over innocent lives was just as ridiculous as my reply back. The article did imply that all terrorists were Arab.
quote:This article relayed one person's account of one incident. It has evidently been picked up by other news organizations and corroborated, at least somewhat. The author was unhappy with the response to this particular incident, and used the incident to question the overall level of airline safety. It is a complete article that does not require an enumeration of America's mistreatment of Arab men.
It used an isolated incident as the measure of all airline safety with regard to screening Arab men. It was not covering all airline security in general, just how it applied to Arab men. It concludes that airline security should be tighter, without giving any evidence to show that it is actually lax. Instead, the author counts on a story filled with biased interpretation and exaggerated suspicion to hold up her conclusion.
quote:Edit: I forgot this gem: "Homosexuals are not polygamists, and polygamists are not homosexuals."
Sure. The fact that both issues have to do with redefining marriage is just not important, is it?
Now you're just being insipid. This has nothing to do with this issue, and you only brought it up to attack my character. Get over it or ignore me like you claimed you should have.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the easily explained away 'good reasons' for taking McDonalds bags, cameras, lareg cloth-wrapped items etc. into the same lavatory, one after the other?
You know what would have never raised an eyebrow among the passengers? 15 women going in out of the lavatory with thier handbags. I just gave myself the cold shivers.
But, anyway, cell phones in the lavatory? Can't use 'em. If you were afraid of somebody stealing it, just ask one of your buddies to hold it.
I dunno. Maybe they were hoping the passengers would tackle them, making an embarrassing news story out of it in hopes that people would be less likely to see that stuff as 'strange.'
Well, okay, taking fast food into an airplane lavatory should always seem strange. But maybe that's just me.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the author lead to the conclusion that Arab people are not checked enough through security? Yes, she does.
No, she doesn't. She claims that after a suspicious incident is observed some things aren't investigated enough for fear of being accused of profiling. A very different accusation than the way you characterized it.
quote:Does the author use separate statements, including quotes from Ann Coulter (hardly unbiased), to lead to a conclusion that Arabs should be checked more? Yes, she does.
No, she doesn't. Again, she leads to the conclusion that people behaving suspiciously should not not be checked because they are Arabs. And that when a specific threat is identified by intelligence, screening should take that threat into account.
quote:You may opine that she is saying something different, but considering the other parts of the article, not just the personal account, the fact that she leads to the conclusion that Arabs are not properly checked in airline security is pretty obvious.
She did mention the lack of screening of the orthopedic shoe. Again, she's talking about reaction TO a specific incident and a specific identified threat.
quote:No example of lax security is actually given, despite the personal (exaggerated) story. Even in the story, there is no evidence of actual lax security, just that there was supposedly an ongoing investigation. So, the conclusion the author comes to without providing any basis in reality is based solely on ethnicity, which is racist.
It was based on her being scared and seeing nothing done about the incident which scared her. You've basically said, "All her other reasons are BS, so it must be because she's racist."
quote:No, this is one statement used by the author to claim that airline security is hindered in some way to stop terrorist attacks. The fact that the author's claim is an outright misrepresentation of a policy that has nothing to do with hindering security is an example of how this article is racist. Just because you don't want to consider it does not make it irrelevant.
Well, she quotes a source, and not Ann Coulter. You've quoted no one to show it's wrong. So if it is relevant, then you need to do more than say, "That's not true."
quote:No, 3 and 4 are typical examples of how eyewitness accounts are often over-dramatized, inaccurate, and tend to be full of hearsay where even the most ridiculous of statements can't be corroborated. Were the account given by the author a compilation of more than just one person, more weight could be given to the testimony. Instead, the author makes the attempt to tie in the personal account as if it has weight with the supposed investigation that went on. However, the only fact that is given in her account about the FBI and other law enforcement involvement is that they were there, they questioned her and her husband and that was it. The author makes it seem like her answering questions to the FBI was the critical piece of evidence to catch the bad guys, though no mention of any bad guys being caught, only Syrian passports in one official's hands.
In essence, the whole "experience" that the author puts to story rings of pointed racism on her part, and a tendancy to exaggerate her involvement.
The author told how she was interrogated and the information she gave. Then she told of her attempts to find out what actually happened. She ever say these were bad guys. She said their behavior was suspicious. Apparently, a lot of other people agreed.
quote:My remark was made in context of the article. PSI's comment about hurting feelings over innocent lives was just as ridiculous as my reply back. The article did imply that all terrorists were Arab.
No, it didn't. It did quote a TSA advisory that Islamic militants, not just terrorists, possibly had plans that this story is consistent with, even if it was totally innocent. No, not all Islamic militants are Arabs. But some are.
quote:It used an isolated incident as the measure of all airline safety with regard to screening Arab men. It was not covering all airline security in general, just how it applied to Arab men. It concludes that airline security should be tighter, without giving any evidence to show that it is actually lax. Instead, the author counts on a story filled with biased interpretation and exaggerated suspicion to hold up her conclusion.
It was talking about the context of a specific threat and a specific incident. And if the policy as testified to the 9/11 Commission is true, then there is very lax security happening.
quote:Now you're just being insipid. This has nothing to do with this issue, and you only brought it up to attack my character. Get over it or ignore me like you claimed you should have.
You made a ridiculous statement about them not being related in this thread. You call my valid response insipid, and fall back on the "You're attacking my character" line. And of course, you've ignored entirely the reason I brought it up in this thread, which is that someone does not have to discuss every aspect of an issue when discussing a topic.
quote:What are the easily explained away 'good reasons' for taking McDonalds bags, cameras, lareg cloth-wrapped items etc. into the same lavatory, one after the other?
Since I have been on many planes, I can say with certainty that it is often surprising what people bring with them into the lavatories. What is more suspicious is that the author only accounts for the activities of the Arab men, and not the weird habits of other passengers.
quote:But, anyway, cell phones in the lavatory? Can't use 'em. If you were afraid of somebody stealing it, just ask one of your buddies to hold it.
But where is the evidence that these were all buddies? The author's claims that they gave each other smiles and thumbs-up signs? When I travel, my valuables either go back into my carry-on bag or into my jacket or something, but holding onto them doesn't seem suspicious to me. I keep my cell phone on my person when I go into the lavatory in a plane. Just because I can't use it doesn't mean I'm going to leave it lying around. That's just silly.
quote:I dunno. Maybe they were hoping the passengers would tackle them, making an embarrassing news story out of it in hopes that people would be less likely to see that stuff as 'strange.'
Or, more likely, the author's account of it is so colored by her own descriptions of just the Arab men at the exclusion of the strange behavior of all of the other passengers, that it is just too simple to draw conclusions that the author is leading to from the start. There are always at least a dozen or so passengers in a plane who get up like that in my cross-country flights. People are just weird like that. Not all of them are Arab or men, either.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As my contribution to this thread, I'd like to point that I recieved a pocket knife for Christmas and have it on my key chain. Since Christmas, it has been through TWELVE (12!) AIRPORT SECURITY CHECKPOINTS (and counting!) and has not once been flagged. It's not hidden - it's just in my purse. My open-top purse, by the way. It's evaded security in Los Angelas, San Francisco, Atlanta, Cleveland, Newark, New Hampshire, Dallas, and...maybe that's all. I can't remember. Anyway.
I have no doubt that despite all the measures, if someone wanted to get something through security, they could. It's no big deal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But where is the evidence that these were all buddies?
quote:The 14 Syrians had been hired as musicians to play at a casino in the desert.
Some of them came in together, some separately, but they were co-workers, at least. Plus, they were standing around in groups around the lavatories, and talking to each other.
And there may have not been 'weird behavior' by non-Arabic passengers on that particular flight. I used to fly a LOT and the wierdest thing I ever saw was a terrified passenger clutching a rosary while the noisome (and drunk) businessman next to me told plane crash stories and tried to buy me drinks.
She did sort of describe the other passengers' behavior a little-- at least one other woman was scared shiteless.
This may very well have been a case of paranoia, but I don't think the investigation was unwarranted, either.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Future quote from Justa Notha Name, Zeugma, and other tolerant progressives:
quote: Oh no! Brian has quoted an opinion of THE DEVIL, Ann Coulter. Therefore he must be a racist, bigoted, mindless sheep of the evil right wing demagogues. It doesn't matter whether his point has any merit; the fact that he used a quote from THE DEVIL, Ann Coulter renders everything he says irrelevant.
Talk about attacking one's character.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the author lead to the conclusion that Arab people are not checked enough through security? Yes, she does.
No, she doesn't. She claims that after a suspicious incident is observed some things aren't investigated enough for fear of being accused of profiling. A very different accusation than the way you characterized it.
She doesn't say "some things" in her article. She points out that Arabs are not investigated enough without giving any actual proof, just supposition based on an event where she didn't have all the information to begin with.
quote:
quote:Does the author use separate statements, including quotes from Ann Coulter (hardly unbiased), to lead to a conclusion that Arabs should be checked more? Yes, she does.
No, she doesn't. Again, she leads to the conclusion that people behaving suspiciously should not not be checked because they are Arabs. And that when a specific threat is identified by intelligence, screening should take that threat into account.
Except she give no basis for what is suspicious, and once again relies on her own biased account.
quote:She did mention the lack of screening of the orthopedic shoe. Again, she's talking about reaction TO a specific incident and a specific identified threat.
Worn by an Arab. How convenient. And if you read the link given talking about orthopedic shoes, you get no information saying that they are overlooked. TWA asks that they are informed because orthopedic shoes often set off metal detectors. That's all. Since all airlines almost exclusively ask boarding passengers to remove shoes when walking through the detector anyway, the fact that the man in her story was wearing an ortho shoe would have been found out then. The author conveniently omits this little piece of information. Instead, she just points out an Arab man with an ortho shoe.
quote:It was based on her being scared and seeing nothing done about the incident which scared her. You've basically said, "All her other reasons are BS, so it must be because she's racist."
It was based on her being paranoid, and the entire article is the attempt to spread that paranoia by omitting the behavior of non-Arab passengers. I've basically said that her story is BS because she is concentrating on just the Arab passengers as the presumably guilty party. Her own statement at the end:
quote:So the question is... Do I think these men were musicians? I'll let you decide. But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?
That pretty much implies that the 14 men, who turned out having no records, no weapons, and no cause for detainment, were terrorists. Would she have reacted differently were these men not foreigners, or more importantly, Arab? Considering her constant focus on the men's ethnicity, I think not.
quote:Well, she quotes a source, and not Ann Coulter. You've quoted no one to show it's wrong. So if it is relevant, then you need to do more than say, "That's not true."
You need to read before mouthing off. She not only cites Coulter as a source, but even links to Coulter's site. I've quoted numerous incedents where the claim that Arabs are not being more heavily scrutinized is wrong. Check out the CBS link I gave. What parts aren't true?
The part about the shoes. Airlines ask passengers to almost always remove shoes and send them through the x-ray machine. Otherwise, the metal detector would pick up the metal shank in most shoes. Orthopedic shoes are not only carrying more metal, but would be noticed right away even without telling the officials. Claiming that ortho shoes are somehow slipping by the process is ridiculous.
ALL carry-on luggage is checked through the x-ray screener. In addition, the screener detects concentrations of explosives, and in many cases there are explosives detectors used separately. The author omits these screening measures when talking about what the men brought with them.
The author talks about state to state layovers as if they should be conducted like the nation to nation layovers she mentions she had in a flight a few weeks earlier. Of course, she doesn't say this outright, because she omits the fact that in her European flight, she was more likely to cross national borders than she would in a national US flight. She gives us a conclusion without enough information from which to draw our own.
The author makes note of Norman Mineta's complaints against US Airlines, but also claims that airlines cannot search more than two Arabs without being fined, which is a lie. The claim made by John Lehman in the commission is pretty much baseless. In fact, here are Mineta's own words, shortly after 9/11. These were policies since 1997. The incidents that the author is citing are not because of checking more than two Arabs a flight, but of far more egregious behavior. American Airlines was also being investigated as of 2003. The author omits key information to make it look like airlines' hands are tied when they are not. And if John Lehman, who has stated outright that the War on Terror is a religious war against Islamic fundementalists, is both the author's and Coulter's best source for the claim, immediate suspicion should be applied.
The author is actually given an explanation by colleagues:
quote:I shared my story with a few colleagues. One mentioned she'd been on a flight with a group of foreign men who were acting strangely -- they turned out to be diamond traders. Another had heard a story on National Public Radio (NPR) shortly after 9/11 about a group of Arab musicians who were having a hard time traveling on airplanes throughout the U.S. and couldn't get seats together. I took note of these two stories and continued my research.
Even though she is told of other events where such mistaken intentions occur, she continues, determined to equate her experience with terrorist activity, not as some case of mistaken identity due to paranoia. Her denial of the obvious is right in her own article.
And here is the most obvious evidence of her racism, quoted directly from her article:
quote:So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?
She even singles them out that they were Arab as the reason they should have been screened. She basically admits it right there.
And now, to tear apart one of these pieces of paranoid delusion by this writer:
quote:Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby. One of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down. I watched as the man in the yellow shirt, still in his seat, reached inside his shirt and pulled out a small red book. He read a few pages, then put the book back inside his shirt. He pulled the book out again, read a page or two more, and put it back. He continued to do this several more times.
Let's dissect this carefully...
quote:Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories.
Yes, right before the descent for landing, when passengers are asked to sit and put seatbelts on. It is a common occurrance for people to make one last dash to the bathroom before settling in for landing. This happens every flight—are there any flight attendants here or others who fly often to corroberate this with me? I do this myself. When the seatbelt light goes off after takeoff, I hit the potty. When getting ready to land, I hit the potty. I can make 2-3 trips in-between, depending on what and how much I drink, and the length of the flight.
quote:One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside.
It's amazing that she timed each person, on opposite sides of the plane. However, the time it takes me to urinate, wash my hands, and give a quick glance in the mirror would clock in at about four minutes, unless I was rushed.
But wait a minute. The plane was beginning its descent. Seven men (half front, half back) at four minutes each would have been a grand total of 28 minutes. By the time they all finished, the plane would have begun taxiing into the gate. Considering standard flight attendant practice, these men would have been forced to sit down long before that happened. Sorry, I don't believe her. Either she's lying about timing the men, or she's simply making things up.
quote:Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available.
Considering the placement of the doors, which would be right next to or across from the lavatories, there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about this.
quote:The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby.
This implies nothing except they were speaking in their most natural language. Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, French, Greek, and Italian people do it all the time. Despite the paranoia of those of us who don't understand what they are saying: they are almost never talking about you.
quote:One of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone.
I've taken my PDA and my cell phone in at the same time!
quote:Again, no one approached the men.
Why approach someone who is going to the bathroom?
quote:Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down.
See my previous comment about how unlikely this would be had this happened before landing, as the author claimed it did.
quote:I watched as the man in the yellow shirt, still in his seat, reached inside his shirt and pulled out a small red book. He read a few pages, then put the book back inside his shirt. He pulled the book out again, read a page or two more, and put it back. He continued to do this several more times.
This is suspicious... why? Because he kept putting it back? What could it have possibly been? A terrorist guidebook? A "How to Blow Up Planes" manual? Get real.
Oh, and the next paragraph:
quote:I looked around to see if any other passengers were watching. I immediately spotted a distraught couple seated two rows back. The woman was crying into the man's shoulder. He was holding her hand. I heard him say to her, "You've got to calm down." Behind them sat the once pleasant-smiling, goatee-wearing man.
She gives no reason for the woman crying, only pointing out that while all this stuff she is claiming is suspicious (but easily explainable) is going on, someone is crying. Anything from the heights to a little minor turbulence could have set this woman to tears, but since the author doesn't know for sure, she places the crying woman into her terrorist story.
And this:
quote:The last man came out of the bathroom, and as he passed the man in the yellow shirt he ran his forefinger across his neck and mouthed the word "No."
Except that just before, the men were all speaking Arabic to each other. Why the sudden change to English when just mouthing a word? Inconsistencies like this in her story are what lead me to believe she is full of horse manure.
quote:The author told how she was interrogated and the information she gave. Then she told of her attempts to find out what actually happened. She ever say these were bad guys. She said their behavior was suspicious. Apparently, a lot of other people agreed.
Except her friends:
quote:I shared my story with a few colleagues. One mentioned she'd been on a flight with a group of foreign men who were acting strangely -- they turned out to be diamond traders. Another had heard a story on National Public Radio (NPR) shortly after 9/11 about a group of Arab musicians who were having a hard time traveling on airplanes throughout the U.S. and couldn't get seats together.
And the authorities:
quote:They were questioned at length by FAM, the FBI and the TSA upon landing in Los Angeles. The 14 Syrians had been hired as musicians to play at a casino in the desert. Adams said they were "scrubbed." None had arrest records (in America, I presume), none showed up on the FBI's "no fly" list or the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists List. The men checked out and they were let go.
And yet the author still implies not only in her story about the events, but in the end of this article, that they were terrorists:
quote:So the question is... Do I think these men were musicians? I'll let you decide. But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?
More important than her own friends, though, I would like to stress that _the authorities_ let them go and cleared them of any malicious intent. She does little to address this, and even goes on to still remark about the incident as if it were the behavior of terrorists, going as far as "investigating" warnings from the FBI and implying that the government should be scanning more tightly.
Even though the authorities found nothing to convict them.
quote:No, it didn't. It did quote a TSA advisory that Islamic militants, not just terrorists, possibly had plans that this story is consistent with, even if it was totally innocent. No, not all Islamic militants are Arabs. But some are.
But as I already pointed out, this time with quotes, the author makes it a point to concentrate solely on Arabs.
quote:It was talking about the context of a specific threat and a specific incident. And if the policy as testified to the 9/11 Commission is true, then there is very lax security happening.
I sincerely hope you aren't talking about Lehman's testimony. As has already been pointed out by me, he's convinced this is a holy war against Islamic fundementalists. I'd prefer the government avoid fighting holy wars. The article gives no sufficient evidence that airline security is lax enough to allow terrorists to strike.
quote:You made a ridiculous statement about them not being related in this thread. You call my valid response insipid, and fall back on the "You're attacking my character" line. And of course, you've ignored entirely the reason I brought it up in this thread, which is that someone does not have to discuss every aspect of an issue when discussing a topic.
No, I've just not responded about the homosexual/polygamist issue because I'm not going to allow you to derail things. But let me break it down for you.
The author gives a specious account about suspicious behavior.
The behavior that the author deemed as suspicious turns out to have been innocent, according to the authorities.
The author tells her friends about the incident, and the friends reply with similar situations where Arabs were mistakenly treated as exhibiting terrorist behavior.
Undeterred, the author decides to look up a warning about terrorist tactics in a different part of the world.
She quotes Coulter complaining about the policy that the DOT has had prior to 9/11, that is still applicable and being enforced when the policy is broken.
She makes statements about international layovers versus national ones.
She flat-out equates the 14 innocent musicians with the 19 terrorists from 9/11.
Sounds pretty straight-forward to me.
Brian Hill:
quote:Future quote from Justa Notha Name, Zeugma, and other tolerant progressives:
quote: Oh no! Brian has quoted an opinion of THE DEVIL, Ann Coulter. Therefore he must be a racist, bigoted, mindless sheep of the evil right wing demagogues. It doesn't matter whether his point has any merit; the fact that he used a quote from THE DEVIL, Ann Coulter renders everything he says irrelevant.
Talk about attacking one's character.
Yes, Brian, that is a very good example of you personally attacking people for saying things you don't like. Good example. Are you going to attack other people now, or just us "tolerant progressives?"
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You need to ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
