According to the report, the "lead imam" had, just two days before, taught a seminar on how to use the media to get a message out. The whole airport fiasco was apparently the class project. And it was quite effective.

Posted by: Clive at February 23, 2007 6:16 PM

With all the complaints against the immans by these passengers, l would think some clever lawyer would put together a class action suit. l sure hope someone can put these clowns on trail for their little tirade. it is like screaming fire in a theater, you cannot get away from this.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 23, 2007 6:24 PM

You have to remember why Islam chose Minnesota as their Twin Cities area is thee most racist, bigoted and Taliban like in the world. These are the people who elected Junior Ellison, but from their lips against "outsiders" they are secular Islamists without the Islam.
Under their smiles are hatred and malevolence. If Mr. Spencer were featured in Minneapolis and the StarTribune did a story on him it would slime him with "nazi, neocon, islamophobe" in half the article as being "fair".
The people of out state Minnesota are more conservative, but the entire state is Ted Turner self absorbed in importance. They are giving Al Gore a degree for bashing America.
So Minnesota was a deliberate choice as they were playing to a simp audience with a big mouth in Washington.

These are not Hubert Humphrey people any more. They are Berkley and you will not find the KSTP story on CBS power station WCCO or leftist StarTrib papers.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 23, 2007 6:24 PM

I think their seminar should have been called: "How to demonstrate that you a have a big chip on your shoulder", a course which is designed for the ambitious Muslim trying to alienate Infidel opinion.

Posted by: jewdog at February 23, 2007 6:25 PM

These six unholy rollers thought they could play a game with the other passengers, and they were busted on it. It seems that everywhere we turn now days, Islamists are causing a dust up.

Since sensitivity training about Muslims has resulted because of this dirty half dozen's shameful deeds, the claims by CAIR representatives and other public liars that Islam is so similar to Christianity is refuted.

Apparently, Islam is in fact so different from Chriatianity, that special accommodations are expected by Islamists, and the flunkies that speak for them.

What a shame, this politically correct multiculturalism farce..........

The woman at the ticket counter in the video had a great answer for the babbling Imam....."Please leave our ticket counter."

Posted by: DCWatson at February 23, 2007 6:30 PM

This fat slob Muslim cleric looks like a garden variety Caucasian. His behavior-not his looks- was the problem. He's as real as Ibby Hooper's tiny weenie. What a bunch of phonies.

Posted by: Frank at February 23, 2007 6:33 PM

The "Flying Imams" incident was another security probe. End of story. There have been many already. Cockpit door handles being tested, people repeatedly entering restrooms. The list is endless. This event was also perfectly timed to coincide with the new democrats taking power and thereby lending more impetus to legislative favoritism being shown towards "Muslim sensitivities".

Where is the transcript of that Arabic speaking woman who overheard the imams making derogatory remarks about Bush and America? I had hoped she was the one interviewed in the linked article.

Also, since this incident was a result of collusion between these individuals, why have they not been sued for intentionally delaying the flight and all of the costs associated with it? Between time spent on the tarmac, crew pay, jet fuel and a host of other expenses, quite a substantial bill could be handed to these terrorist facilitators.

Posted by: Zenster at February 23, 2007 6:58 PM

The whole of Islam is based on fabrications. It is just amazing that about billion people don't see that! What a waste of human resources. How can anyone live on 'my God is better than yours' syndrome?

I want them out of here! I want Islam/Pest free States.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at February 23, 2007 7:04 PM

Zenster-

You are perceptive. But I think that it is well known in law enforcement that CAIR and Co. have "known terrorist connections" as Sen. Chuck Schumer has noted. One day, we will all hear tapes and read transcripts that confirm our natural instincts about these frauds, these criminals. Theirs is an organized attempt to make us all vulnerable to what they have been part of for at least 25 years.

Posted by: Frank at February 23, 2007 7:07 PM

Busted

Posted by: The Goobs at February 23, 2007 7:22 PM

I have been waiting for a segue to use this quote for a while. It didn't take long, as I am always hearing about how the most simple thing causes these people "humiliation". I chose this one because the "humiliation" has for all of us such potentially far reaching effects.

Despite the fact that this was most certainly staged, they still insist on dragging in humiliation for just about any perceived offense, as if humiliation was the worst thing that they could every experience.

We wonder, how is this, or any of the myriad of other things complained about humiliating. I think the answer is that they are so full of pride, anything at all that pokes at that pride is in fact a humiliation to them. With almost every complaint they bring up, this is one of their pillars, that they are being or have been humiliated.

Remember humility is the opposite of pride. Here is the quote from someone far more capable of explaining this issue than I. It jumped out at me while I was reading the book as something very applicable to Islam and its teachings.

C.S. Lewis from his book "Mere Christianity".

"The Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity - it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.

In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know God as that - and, therefore know yourself as nothing in comparison - you do not know God at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.

That raises a terrible question. How is it that people who are quite obviously eaten up with Pride can say they believe in God and appear to themselves very religious? I am afraid it means they are worshiping an imaginary God. They theoretically admit themselves to be nothing in the presence of this phantom God, but are really all the time imagining how He approves of them and thinks them far better than ordinary people: that is they pay a pennyworth of imaginary humility to Him and get out of it a pound's worth of Pride towards their fellow men.
…
Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good - above all, that we are better than someone else - I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the devil."

Watch for it, most of the fuel that Muslims seem to run on, is in fact Pride, the antithesis of a humble position before God.

Posted by: Lorgan at February 23, 2007 7:26 PM

Thank you for the encouragement, Frank.

"as if humiliation was the worst thing that they could every experience."

Actually, humiliation is one of the worst things imaginable for the vast majority of Muslims to experience.

We in America live in a "low context" culture. Some traits of low context cultures are:
(Link: http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html)

* Rule oriented, people play by external rules
More knowledge is codified, public, external, and accessible.

*Sequencing, separation--of time, of space, of activities, of relationships

* More interpersonal connections of shorter duration

* Knowledge is more often transferable

* Task-centered. Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be done, division of responsibilities.

Whereas high context cultures exhibit traits such as:

* Less verbally explicit communication, less written/formal information

* More internalized understandings of what is communicated

* Multiple cross-cutting ties and intersections with others

* Long term relationships

* Strong boundaries- who is accepted as belonging vs who is considered an "outsider"

* Knowledge is situational, relational.

* Decisions and activities focus around personal face-to-face relationships, often around a central person who has authority.

An understanding of the role context plays in the Islamic mind is absolutely essential in comprehending how ruinous any sort of humiliation is to the Arab mind.

Imagine a country the size of Costa Rica repeatedly and decisely whipping America's military @ss to a smooth creamy lather on every occassion. That is the scale on which Israel has defeated the Arab nations surrounding it. No wonder the Arabs feel so humiliated, they should.

Now, multiply that by the Islamic religious hatred and context differences between Arab and Israeli cultures and you begin to gain a faint glimpse of just how vast the gap is that separates these two cultures.

Some more on cultural context:
(Link: http://www.eki.ee/teemad/kultuur/context/intro.html

In high-context cultures, in which one's behaviour is to a great extent determined by social roles and expectations, a person is usually spoken to in order to motivate him or her to behave differently from what he or she would otherwise probably do. In such culture speaking is a real art, in which emphasis is laid on the emotional aspect. This is also what the listener expects to receive - an emotional message to persuade him. The interpretational limits of the message, however, are rather loose: both speaking and listening are regarded as sources of enjoyment. The speaker is expected to present an unhurried and relatively long talk, usually not to be interrupted by the partner. A turn of speaking usually represents a complete and finished deliverance. Questions are normally asked not in order to extract additional information, but to put the matter in a more philosophical perspective. The principal rule to be followed in high-context cultures is Don't interfere, let him speak!

In low-context cultures, however, the speaker expects to influence the partner to act in the speaker's interests by pointing out a number of options and providing enough information to enable him or her to take the desirable decision by himself. Here rational information prevails over social motivation. Emotional charge is delivered by surprise, that is created, first and foremost, by disclosing novel information. The more surprising turns the conversation takes, the higher the emotional charge achieved. To keep the emotional level high information flow and, consequently, speech has to be rapid. The listener, in his turn, is searching the text for new information and, in order to ensure the correctness of its perception, keeps asking specifying questions. This way the listener contributes to a quick and straightforward progression of the conversation. Ambivalence of interpretation is sought to be avoided. The speaker should give an unequivocal explanation of what he or she means. Come to the point! Say what you mean! Don't beat about the bush! - these are the basic rules of conversation to be applied in low-context cultures (v. also Gudykunst 1988 p. 44).

In a nutshell, communication in the respective two types of culture could be characterized as follows:

High-context communication

· communication is aimed at emotions and persuasion

· speech is unhurried and long, as persuasion takes time

· the main emphasis is not laid on the passing on of information, as most of it lies in the context

· both speaking and listening are something to be thoroughly enjoyed

· decisions are taken on the basis of emotions

· free interpretation is allowed

Low-context communication

· the only focus of interest is information, as context is relatively poor in it

· the listener wants to get lots of information, and to have it at once

· decisions are taken on the basis of information

· speaker errors are regarded as unpardonable as they blur information

· interpretation should be unequivocal

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

For those who were unaware of this fundamental difference between Western and Arabic culture, I hope this post provides some vital insights as to the difficulties confronting us when trying to understand the motivational structure of the Muslim mind.

Posted by: Zenster at February 23, 2007 7:49 PM

We really are different from them.
we say yes and no and mean it.
They don't like no,
so they lie to save face,
to keep from saying so.
They haven't experienced Grace.

Lying, they think, is not wrong
when used to defend
family, clan and faith.
They believe life
is an adversarial blame game
where the blame is on everyone else.
They believe that might makes right,
and that violence to their fellow man
is a sacred duty.
They believe this
to the depth of their soul,
that's why they call themselves the believers.

Posted by: the poetess at February 23, 2007 8:31 PM

The message to be sent to flying imams is to fly outta here. Same goes for imams on the ground.

The stupid "sensitivity training" is only used for the mus. Law enforcement must treat mus differently from normal people. Law enforcement must overlook mus misbehavior--be sensitive to "cultural differences," and what goes as law-breaking by normal people must be accepted as the regular behavior of the mus.

They do not belong here. they do not belong in any civilized country on Earth. They do not belong in any country on Earth. They do not belong ON the Earth.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 23, 2007 8:33 PM

I know, you know and any one with any common sense can see what they were doing. What I don't understand IS. Where is the outrage from true Americans. This is bullS*@t plain and simple. These fat bastards will one day meet their allah, pig poo upon him. Has most of America become blind to this garbage.

Posted by: AMartinez at February 23, 2007 8:58 PM

"What a shame, this politically correct multiculturalism farce"..........
Posted by:DCWatson at February 23, 2007 06:30 PM

"quoted for emphasis"

I actually didn't bother to watch the video. There really is no reason to. Just another well thought out example of "testing of the waters" by Islamists, obviously in full support of Islamic Jihad, the lesser, the greater.......yeah, whatever. The US capitulates and then Islam advances, albeit slowly, towards its ultimate goal of global domination. There are many microcosmic examples of that Islamic victory, though none worth mentioning in a circle of the sane.

Thank you DCWatson for your contribution, and I reiterate his post was "quoted for emphasis", for it spells out the true task at hand. Islam is Islam. We all know what that entails by now, not a whole lot to put on a resume for a job anywhere, for any sentient human being actually, but that is besides the point.

As true is the fact that Saudi Arabia is the biggest financial exporter of Islam today, you know, the non-tolerant, cut your head off, death to ALL infidels type of Islam we all know about, is the fact that PC multiculturalism, the bane of the West, and similarly, the blessing of Islamic advancement, infiltration and adulteration of historical Judeo-Christian culture, is all too real.

Being an American, it is obvious that this malaise is all too real and inbred in our society, affecting more than the main PC culprit, the MSM, and affects so many different levels of Western culture.

And there's where it ends for me. Being still, sufficiently ill-prepared to speak of this matter further, I leave it to the more learned of my brethren, like remote_control, to elaborate further on PC multiculturalism, and its negative affection to the West, and the rational mind as well.

If remote is not around to respond, seek solace in Hugh's witful banter, for he is rarely, if ever, wrong about such matters.

Posted by: awake at February 23, 2007 9:58 PM

those guys are fat as shit, obviously they are not observing the practice of fasting. maybe their imam licenses should be revolked.

Posted by: sectionOne at February 23, 2007 10:14 PM

there is also a weight restriction and limitations on airplanes, maybe there needs to be a special observance of fat imams calculated in the balance of the aircrafts for further safety.

Posted by: sectionOne at February 23, 2007 10:16 PM

Lorgan,

Very astute post. One of the things that irritates us so is this superiority complex from a people that act so backwards. And arrogance is never appreciated. Think about it, who are most people attracted to, the arrogant ass who is covertly hostile and looks down at others, or a truly humble and sincere individual who respects other people for who they are? I don't think there is anything more sexy than a very strong man who knows himself and knows what he would do if a threat arose, but is humble in his demeanor, like a river that runs very deep.

The flying Imams are repulsive because of their arrogance but also their belief system. I'm reading Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, right now and the arrogance is one thing. The abject disregard for the well being of their daughters, the desire that they marry against their will and submit to cruel and unusual sexual abuse from the new husband, in the name of making a good match is incomprehensible. And the control issue, guy, you can't do ANYTHING in Islam without someone watching over you and judging your every move. All this makes for a very bitter cocktail. Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 23, 2007 10:22 PM

"But I think that it is well known in law enforcement that CAIR and Co. have "known terrorist connections" as Sen. Chuck Schumer has noted. One day, we will all hear tapes and read transcripts that confirm our natural instincts about these frauds, these criminals."

And I have an almost new bridge for you, real cheap.

Posted by: mik_infidel at February 23, 2007 11:13 PM

Imams are real villains. But other set of villains are our politicos and gov who let those ragheads into this country.

There is no changing Mussulman, preventing him from coming is the only solution.

Posted by: mik_infidel at February 23, 2007 11:19 PM

"... those guys are fat as shit ..."

As Groucho made famous, "... and the analogy doesn't end there ..."

Posted by: LoneRanger at February 23, 2007 11:27 PM

Among forms of government one is preeminently right and is the only real government, in which the rulers are found to be truly possessed of science…And whether they purge the state for its good by killing or banishing some of the citizens, or make it smaller by sending out colonies somewhere…so long as they act in accordance with science and justice and preserve and benefit it by making it better than it was, so far as is possible, that must at that time and by such characteristics be declared to be the only right form of government.
-Plato

In the 1960s, Western governments adopted laws based on how we like to imagine the world. Forty years later, these laws are beginning to have an impact and we are slowly recognizing that we have created an unsustainable government structure.

Gyroscopes eventually return to equilibrium. The spark will probably be the failure of the social safety net, or it may be a successful WMD attack, or coordinated riots. When the time comes, Islam will make it easy on the rest of us by having it's followers isolate themselves and act like such asses during the run-up. We have the airlift capacity to end this failed experiment in a week. It can be done humanely. No seat belt extenders on this flight though.

Posted by: pez at February 23, 2007 11:38 PM

Kudos to Bob McNamey's questioning. Great piece. Now let's see the National channels pick this up.....ha!

Posted by: Gotham at February 24, 2007 12:25 AM

Maybe a bit digressive here...

I was thinking what if the solution were to actively engage certain nations in the context of their ability to do good around the world - such as we Western nations usually do. All on our own..

so here goes.. it's merely a thought..

Apropos our Lefty-goodpeople... I really don't question their original intent [good intentions pave the road to hell] in terms of making the lives of all of Earth's citizens livable and humane.

This ideal is probably shared even by many of those among us who have found it necessary to make their concerns known not only on this particular venue.

The Enlightement which is one of the greatest achievements of Western Thought compels us to consider the well-being of all Mankind throughout.

In a way this revolutionary yet so seemingly self-evident ideal has given us all great moral cause to evaluate the nature of our ways as much as the effects of our actions upon the lives of all Mankind.

We see this exemplified in our common outburst of concerned action each time that we are confronted with natural as well as Man-made catastrophes whenever and wherever they occur.

The real split within our Western societies revolves around the question of when our desire to help and do good for Mankind world-wide is met with cynical self-interest, corruption and exploitation.

There are those among us who truly believe that an unconditional display of good will and selfless idealism will be met with the feeling of Universal Brotherhood with which it is indeed intended.

There are doubtlessly a great many who see this idealism for making things right and better for all Mankind in the spirit with which it is intended.

Unfortunately many of our most idealistic and purveyors are blind to the many historical factors - as well as simple factors as human proclivities of self-interest and greed - which unfortunately play a very significant role in this dynamic.

Accepting aid naturally evokes human emotions such as humiliation and resentment for reason of being in such a situation of dependency. Pride is a very natural and universal human State of Being. Being recipient of any form of assistance - no matter how well-intended and selflessly rendered - is nonetheless a huge violation of self-esteem and pride.

It is beyond the scope of this simple essay to explore solutions on how such well-meant assistance might better be rendered with the aim of not only preserving the pride and self-esteem of those who are [temporarily] in need of such.

All I wish to say at this time is to suggest to the "donors" of aid to keep in mind the saying made famous by Jesus.. Teaching a man to fish enables him while handing him a fish for momentary sustenance keeps him in dependency - something that violates anyone's innate knowledge of self-worth.

The friends we make with respectful and truly respectful help in their time of need may one day remember how we treated them should the day ever come that we should need them to help us out.

That said, I feel we need to engage the materially capable Muslim states such as Saudi-Arabia [and certain others] to step up in times of humanitarian crisis.

So far, we've been letting them off the hook for far too long. Engaging these countries within their capabilities of rendering international aid will give them cause to confront their histories and how they wish to define their role in the World Community.

Failure to do so demonstrates a form of implicit condescension. We don't expect better of them. Let us find out before we pass judgement. Getting these countries involved more actively with responsabilities befitting their actual capabilities will surely give cause for introspection and desperately needed self-evaluation.

We should never hesitate to hold any country to the same standard to which we hold ourselves. Someone who is treated as if nothing is expected from them will never feel cause to step up. Let us start to openly expect world-wide humanitarian engagement from any nation capable of doing their part.

The worst they can do is say no.

No nation on Earth is perfect. But let us begin to expect that all who are able shoulder their part.

The circle of those who shoulder worldwide responsability has increased steadily [notably: Japan].

We must assume that all who are able to provide assistance and relief be morally compelled to engage these issues.

The failure to expect the best of our fellow men will only result in the self-fulfilling prophecy of lowered expectations.

We should expect the very best. Doing so may bring about positive changes far beyond our present expectations.

Posted by: scrualla at February 24, 2007 6:56 AM

Great essay, scrualla; this is something I've been writing about for a while, and you articulate it well. However, keen as the following insight may be it is not a quote by Jesus you are using here.

All I wish to say at this time is to suggest to the "donors" of aid to keep in mind the saying made famous by Jesus.. Teaching a man to fish enables him while handing him a fish for momentary sustenance keeps him in dependency - something that violates anyone's innate knowledge of self-worth.

(Jesus taught many fantastic things, and often used fish, in various ways, to illustrate points. He said things like "I will make you fishers of men". But he never said anything like "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life", or your interpretation of this pithy quote).

An unfortunate misquote that, I hope, doesn't overly detract from your main points. First, that we need to engage the liberal left and their laudable values and instead of just continually heating up the partisan political furnace, partner with them in working toward appropriate change in the islamic world, second that we should convince them to stop beating up on the west and blaming America for every ill in the world, and third that these filthy-rich islamic states need to learn to spend their money on helpful, peace-building projects instead of islamic imperialism and the consequent terror.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at February 24, 2007 11:59 AM

"There are those among us who truly believe that an unconditional display of good will and selfless idealism will be met with the feeling of Universal Brotherhood with which it is indeed intended."

"And Hillbillies want to be called 'Sons of the Soil', but it ain't gonna happen real soon."

[/Dr. Julius Hibbert]

"(Jesus taught many fantastic things, and often used fish, in various ways, to illustrate points. He said things like "I will make you fishers of men". But he never said anything like "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life", or your interpretation of this pithy quote)."

As in?:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he drinks for a lifetime.

Posted by: Zenster at February 24, 2007 3:40 PM

In response, my in-sensitivity to Muslims is about to drop below sea level this week.

Working on my first video for release to YouTube. If it doesn't get banned, I'll be offended.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 24, 2007 6:39 PM

It is long overdue that American government agencies start giving training from people like Robert Spencer along with the many other experts who have a clear understanding of Islams aspirations towards the western world.

I am tired of seeing our tax money wasted day after day on the ignorance about Islam that is constantly on display by politicians. I hope I don't hear about another sensitivity training class given by CAIR to various law enforcement agencies.

A month after 9-11 the Islamic Center of Southern California published a 32 page pamphlet entitled "Glimpses of the Quran" that was passed out to Los Angeles Government agencies of which I still have a copy that was collated by Dr. Hassan Hathout. The pamphlet was dedicated in the memory of the victims and heroes of the September 11th, 2001 tragedy. When I look at this pamphlet today, it definitely represented glimpses with no reference to the term jihad. The booklet is a complete sham to what is really written in the Quran let alone the AHadiths.

Posted by: Mackie at February 24, 2007 7:33 PM