Six Iraqis felt they were being "racially" profiled? Iraqis are caucasian.

Posted by: j_not_a at November 8, 2007 6:45 PM

...and I'm suing all muslims for profiling and killing Americans just because we are non-muslims. If these six clowns from Detroit cannot support my suit then they are hypocrites. (Note to self: of course they are hypocrites, they are muslims.)

Posted by: angryeagle at November 8, 2007 7:10 PM

So, if I walk into a mosque and talk about how great Jews are and how great pork is.....are they going to kick me out? Can I sue?

Why haven't any Americans moved this 'discrimination' thing to the mosues? Followed by lawsuits?

If a women wants to go to the mosque and pray with the men, then why can't she? Remove her and let her sue.

Aren't there any people out there that are looking for quick money? Go to a mosque.

I am assuming that they will have lost their civilian contracting job with the Marines. What were they doing with the Marines? Has anyone answered that question?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at November 8, 2007 7:41 PM

These actions by Muslims / Arabs / Iraqis, whatever, are only widening the gap between the west and Muslims and Islam, creating the conditions for 'islamophobia' to grow and grow exponentially.

Someday, they will reap what they sow, exponentially.

Posted by: sounder at November 8, 2007 8:10 PM

"Six Iraqi natives . . . "?

I thought we were fighting them over there to keep from having to fight them here?

(Don't listen to what "anyone" says, but watch what "anyone" does.]

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 8, 2007 8:12 PM

What might help America to handle this problem is development of MORE rail travel through the USA and LESS domestic air travel. This could help resolve our dilemma with preventing terror attacks by dispersing the density of travelers per potential vehicle target thus making them less attractive to terrorists hoping for spectacular body counts.

It is also ridiculous in my view that Americans now spend five or six hours in security lines for DOMESTIC flights that may last about the same amount of time (if not less). In fact, trains now run in western Europe and China that travel at about 200 mph, which in America would make it possible to travel from Los Angeles to DC in less than one day.

With more development of rail travel across America, there would as mentioned probably be less incentive for terror attacks on them because trains usually hold fewer passengers than jetliners. I see no problems with designing trains to carry less passengers than jetliners (while operating them on more frequent schedules). Perhaps luggage could be restricted to a separate train reducing the danger of bombs brought aboard.

With less interest in attacking our nation's transit system, the problem of potential terrorists should diminish, as the attraction would fade. And those passengers who board hoping to frighten and/or intimidate American passengers might just hang it up at that point.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 8, 2007 8:14 PM

Pythagoras-

They will find another hole to crawl into. Cyber terror is chillingly plausible and would shut down all the planes AND those trains you speak of.

The cyber attackers will be Saudis and such trained HERE in the U.S. being trained AS I WRITE THIS.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 8, 2007 8:18 PM

Essential knowledge for understanding the following:
Tautology (logic), a statement of propositional logic which can be inferred from any proposition whatsoever
Tautology (rhetoric), use of redundant language that adds no information

Convicted Jihadi Terrorist or Confused Day Dreamer?

http://www.davidosler.com/2007/11/the_lyrical_terrorist_and_stur.html

Pity Samina Malik, the young woman who will live for the rest of her life with the consequences of a terrorism conviction simply for being a suburban shopgirl who committed her fantasies on the internet.

Scribbling doggerel in praise of al Qa’eda on the back of WH Smith receipts will do no more to bring about the universal caliphate then a smartarse politics student with a Che Guevara poster in his bedroom does to further guerrilla struggle in South America.

Malik is just one of many millions of kids in every country around the world wrapped up in a flirtation with any variety of anti-establishment symbolism that comes immediately to hand. Mostly it stops at posting message on online talk boards, as it did in her case.

Sometimes, tragically, it goes much, much further. Only yesterday, Pekka-Erik Auvinen – fascinated with both Nazism and Stalinism, it now emerges – went on a shotgun rampage through his high school in a small Finnish town, killing seven others and then himself in the name of social Darwinism.

Auvinen styled himself Sturmgeist89 on the worldwide web. Malik, for her part, wished to be known as the Lyrical Terrorist. The reason? Because, as she explained to the jury, 'it sounded cool'. At that age, what better reason can there possibly be?

I remember being an anarchist for approximately six months in 1977, after the first Sex Pistols single came out. Had the internet existed then, I might well have written up my urge to 'destroy the passer-by'.

Back in the early 1980s, I used to hang around the polytechnic bar clad in a Brigate Rosse T-shirt. These days, that might constitute prima facie evidence of the offence of glorifying terrorism.

Let’s keep a sense of proportion here. Yes, I am in favour of intelligence service surveillance against violent Jihadists. But what is needed is action against real terrorists, not lyrical ones.

Just imagine how counter-productive Malik’s conviction is going to prove in the struggle for the hearts and minds of alienated Muslim youth.

The paranoid determination to bust crazy mixed up kids is the first step on the road that leads to gunning down innocent Brazilian electricians at Stockwell tube station.
-----------------------------
I know that most Amerisheep swallow Bush "islam is peace" vomit. Thus, the US must serve abjectly their Muslim masters who seek to "hijack" their noble faith, and act counter to the splendid model of their wise "prophet." However, the above moron - who is a Britlamb - cites a case where thought-terror actually led to real-terror. Thus, we should work against terror inspiration of the fascist and communist kind, and let it go where noble islam is involved.

I would like to see Bush's library. I suspect he owns nothing but Aramco propaganda, ex-dypso' testimonials, Southern Baptist' commentaries and Doctor Seuss kiddie texts, if not "Dick and Jane."
I wish he would go back to the bottle.

As for the dead Brazilian, it is better that 1000 innocent persons die than if 1 terrorist goes free.

Posted by: supercargo at November 8, 2007 9:21 PM

OT, but there's a good article by Dan Pipes in jpost.com, "Saddam's Damn Dam" on how we're wasting billions on Iraqi infrastructure:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380761642&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Meanwhile - false arrests have always been a classic scam. I remember hearing about one guy who would dress in loud clothes, go into a store, make sure security was watching, look around furtively, stuff something in his pocket, then quietly put it back in another aisle. Upon exting, he would be stopped, arrested, and then sue for false arrest. His goal was money, but jihadi agitprop can be another at an airport.

Posted by: jewdog at November 8, 2007 9:24 PM

They brought it on themselves - it's that simple!

Posted by: Gramfan at November 8, 2007 9:45 PM

I recently took a R&A excursion to Scotland from JFK. Rest assured, I eyed every single passenger. Likewise on the return trip, but I was intrigued to see that the Islamists are in full charge of airport security in JFK and Heathrow. Irony at its best, in my opinion.

I am unconcerned, just as all Americans should be unconcerned, about the reprisal of litigation from the CAIR retained lawyers, for merely reporting suspicious behavior.

I AM John Doe.

Posted by: awake at November 8, 2007 10:36 PM

I was on a flight from Vegas to Detroit on Wednesday night. Low and behold, there were some rather loud Arabic speakers of Middle-Eastern decent on the plane. One individual kept having to be told to take his seat and put on his seat belt. He spent more than 50% of the flight standing up and blocking the isle while speaking in loud Arabic to a couple of other gentlemen, who were similarly loud. Their response to the flight attendants who were obviously treading lightly was to poke fun at them in Arabic.

I don't think these guys were terrorists, but their behavior was either incredibly rude or intentionally provocative in order to create an incident. I was otherwise intending to sleep on the flight, but decided it was better to stay awake and read the recent book by John Bolton.

I think we are going to see a delicate tap dance occur on airplanes for a while. The drawing of lines, the crossing of lines, and miscues resulting in lawsuits.

Posted by: JSobieski at November 8, 2007 10:40 PM

“They were so many of them and they were seated all over the plane. They acted like college kids except they were too old. They stood up in unison, kept changing seats, and kept passing cellular phones. They were so disruptive. No one else was being obnoxious like they were. This was totally out-of-line behavior. They were playing musical chairs. The flight attendant kept telling them to sit in their seats. But every time [the flight attendant] was out of eyesight, they were at it again.”

They really can't help it. They're primitives, acting more like out of control kids, except they relish their role as trouble makers. Just primitives, the 'best people', are a simple ignorant primitive people. Relax. Travel to their world, you'll see. That's how they are, can't help it, just Islamists doing their thing, here in America. We let them in, so enjoy their company in a true sense of 'multiculturalist' understanding. They're a simple people.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 8, 2007 10:51 PM

This is why we need the term "culturism." Racism is stupid, but culturism is logical. If diversity exists and culture matters, then where you come from will condition your attitudes.

The word "culturism" helps us clearly distinguish racial profiling from cultural profiling. This is not racist at all, it is culturist. If we do not have a separate and logically substantiated alternative term they will just keep attacking our ability to defend ourselves with the word "racist."

Learn more at www.culturism.us

Posted by: jkp at November 8, 2007 11:13 PM

given the nature of the founder of this cult ie a criminal that muslims call thier perfect man should we be surpried that they would use our good nature as a weapon against us and of using profiling as to get money out o f considered to be kufur and used as a source of jizha andthat is all the lawsuits are about

Posted by: mowasaperv at November 8, 2007 11:24 PM

What is wrong with just asking these rude children to sit down and STFU? Are we so scared of being ganged up on that we cannot stand up for ourselves any more? Are we so neutered by the nanny state that we cannot concieve of sticking up for ourselves?

I fly a low cost US carrier a lot that has a cattle car boarding method. Lots of folks will try to cut the line ahead of those who have been patiently standing their turn. I ALWAYS confront the line jumpers, male or female, in a polite fashion but let them know their behavior is not acceptable. That they are noticed. Most back down. I have had some get stupid. But it is surprising how many of the crowd will back me up. And I get thanked more often than not.

You are not entitled to behave in ways that offend the norms of this society. It is long past time for all adults to take the public sphere back from the rude children that think they are entitledto special treatement because Mommy or Daddy or some PC multiculturalist said they were. You are not. The rest of us need to stand up for what is right and stop letting yourselves be pushed around.

Posted by: Robohobo at November 9, 2007 1:30 AM

Three words for you Americans: Tort law reform.

The US is the only developed country in the world where the loser of a legal challenge does not pay the court costs of the winner.

Posted by: Brett_McS at November 9, 2007 1:35 AM

"they were racially profiled, leaving at least one of the six feeling “violated.”

I don't know. That statement is just so wrong it makes me wanna violate the other 5, just to balance the budget. They should all get their 'fair share' no?

But this is wrong, totally. If the Arabs/Muslims in America are so off the rails that they provoke incidents on flights then this has to be nipped in the butt, right now and without delay. Last night in Vegas I watched how the security guys took care of a trouble maker, it was very impressive: handcuffs and very swift ejection, very unceremonious...

Very reassuring, let me tell you.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 9, 2007 5:17 AM

We can only hope that the next time they get to teach some Marines those Marines give 'them' a lesson on proper behavior on an airplane. Oh to be a fly on that wall.
Why doesn't Congress protect our air carriers from this crap leagally?
Oh thats right they are too busy trying to Coup the administration to do anything useful.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 9, 2007 8:13 AM

What happened to all the Air Marshalls?

Terrorists terrorize. These men are indeed terrorists.

I guess it's time for all airlines to add a member to each and every flight crew--an observer whose job is to observe and report on in-flight incidents, like these.

It's not so easy to sue someone for doing what he gets paid for, nor could he be accused of "profiling", when simply reporting that "passenger in seat B13 exchanged seats with passenger in B20, then exchanged seats again, with passenger in B14..."

Unlike Air Marshalls, 'observers' could be open about their function aboard the aircraft (wear a uniform, write down their observations in a log). If some people want to act like children, then they can live with the consequences of having done so, when they reach their destination.

If the airline warns in advance, on signs posted at the boarding gate (in a multitude of languages) that they do employ observers, passengers can decide whether or not they wish to board.

This won't stop armed terrorists, obviously, but it might quash some of the terrorists who like to shout and play musical chairs.

Posted by: Abscedere at November 9, 2007 9:32 AM

Islam provides blanket protections for Muslims in the West: whenever Muslims are obnoxious, duplicitous, generally unruly and threatening to non-Muslims (meaning, when they faithfully practice Islam) they are going to arouse ire and suspicion, ergo, every faithful Muslim has a greivance and is therefore a walking, talking potential lawsuit.

Seen the article on Hot Air about the Muslim female who is suing a hair salon because it wouldn't hire her because of her do-rag? Twenty-five salons turned her down, so she's suing the one that hurt her feelings the worst. The smug look on her homely face is a good argument for burkas.

Couple these goings on with the recently released details about AQ plots to bomb shopping malls, and a few more seconds ticks off of the West's Toleration of Islam Countdown.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at November 9, 2007 9:44 AM

But they were allowed on the flight and arrived at their destination(s). So what exactly is their problem? They felt uncomfortable? Well, good. I'm sure non-Muslims feel "violated" flying into Suadi Arabia, et al and having the cross around their neck removed, etc. Oh I forget - Muslim contries can discriminate, but not the USA 'cause we're the ones attacked by Muslim Jihadists. I ride the subway to work everyday and whenever I see an obvious Muslim(typically a female with her scarf on and ocassionally a male with Koran in hand) getting on the same train car as me, well, I go to the next car. Probably won't matter much when the bomb goes off inside a tunnel, but still...

And I wonder when these six native Iraqis arrived in this country...

Posted by: HOV Dummy at November 9, 2007 9:46 AM

Is it "Un-American" to question suspicious airline passengers?

No. It is part of a rapidly disappearing concept called common sense.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 9, 2007 10:08 AM

I've seen crazy behavior from arab looking men on subways in NYC too.

Posted by: nyone at November 9, 2007 10:17 AM

Can we sue Muslimas for wearing burqa in public?

Few years back we saw 2 burqa-clad ladies in Wal-Mart and my four year old child got very scared! They look much more scary than any Halloween costume!!

Posted by: Proud Woman at November 9, 2007 10:28 AM

Pythagoras, mass transit is a target along with any place where large groups of people gather. Shopping malls, large city bus terminals, and high rises are also targets. That's why I drive 900 miles to Missouri instead of using other methods. With a car that gets 30 mpg, so far, it is still cheaper than four airline tickets, and I do not have to screen the passengers. But, you are correct, rail travel in the US is nearly non-existant. The closest AMTRAC terminal to my home is 200 miles away. Once upon a time there were two major rail traminals 25 miles away, they were closed 40 years ago. I would rather take a train anyway.

The TV pictures of a destroyed train car are enough to deliver the message even if there are no casualties. Also, there is the previous article posted on JW about shopping malls.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 9, 2007 11:25 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/09/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at November 9, 2007 11:37 AM

Perhaps the airlines should stop selling tickets to people with Arabic names --- after all the business is run for the benefit of the shareholders and carrying such people does not pay!

Posted by: Shahryar at November 9, 2007 11:56 AM

I agree with Pythagoras, we badly need vastly improved rail transport in this country. Not just the intercity routes, but also the urban and suburban areas. In almost every European city there is an extensive tram, rapid transit, and/or commuter rail system. Few American cities can even compare. And even in cities with rapid transit and commuter systems, such as New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, there is need for a lot of expansion and improvement. Many of our large cities, such as Detroit, Houston, Phoenix, and Kansas City, have no rail transit at all. Also, rapid transit must be electric, i.e. powered ultimately by nuclear or coal power plants. Diesel-powered commuter trains are an improvement over more expressways, but they are only a half-way measure; they still rely on imported oil. Likewise so-called "bus rapid transit" is only a half-way measure -- it's still diesel.
As far as inter-city rail transit goes, we badly need it for at least the short to medium distance runs. Even at 150 mph average, it would still be 20 hours coast to coast, so that might not be successful. But for shorter distances, 200-300 miles, it should be a winner. When the French built their first TGV from Paris to Lyons with a time of 2 hours, and an average speed of 130 mph, they virtually wiped out air travel between those cities. To their surprise, even traffic between Paris and more distant cities, on conventional lines beyond Lyons, increased greatly, and caused a major decline in air travel.
In the U.S. it's insane that people travel by air for medium distances, such as Chicago-St Louis, or Dallas-Houston, or Philadelphia-Pittsburgh. We need the equivalent of the interstate highway program for rapid transit.
As for security. There are always risks, but rail transit minimizes them. For one thing, a train is on tracks: it can't be run into a building like a plane or bus. Even if terrorists did seize an electric train, the power could be cut off from a central control and the train would coast to a stop. What about a bomb? Well, if a plane is bombed, that almost inevitably means everyone on board is killed. On a train, it's likely only some people in the same car. Several years ago a suitcase-bomb exploded in the luggage rack of a car of one of the French TGV's; the side of the car was blown out, but the train stayed on the tracks, and since the car was not fully occupied there was not even one fatality. If that had happened on a plane, everyone on board would have been killed.
A well-developed rail intercity and urban transit system would both reduce our vulnerability to terrorism and our dependence on imported oil. Abandoning our once-extensive rail system and concentrating exclusively on building expressways helped get us into this mess. Rebuilding the rail system could help get us out of it.

Posted by: ebonystone at November 9, 2007 12:51 PM

memo to poetcomic 1:

Of course Islamic terrorists will find new and other ways to terrorize us. Killing is what they live, hate, and die in vain for.

My point is that Islamic terrorism and passenger intimidation by Muslims do not have to take place at +30,000 feet in the air. We can find creative ways to get 'em out.

As for cyber-terror attacks, you HAVE heard of manually operated equipment have you not? There isn't much computers can do that humans can't do (we designed computers). So I'm less than terrified on this subject. High-speed trains can more than likely be designed to run manually.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 9, 2007 2:03 PM

Someday, they will reap what they sow, exponentially.

Posted by: sounder

Before or after we have destroyed our own societies? They should have reaped what they'd sown after 9/11, then after 7/11, 3/11 and others. They haven't. They never will. We don't have the will to make them pay. (By "we" I mean our leaders and many people on the left. "All you need is love" is their code. "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me" is their motto. The Golden Rule trumps all.)

Posted by: PMK at November 9, 2007 2:44 PM

pelayo:

You are safer by far on a train in a terror attack than on a plane and the risk of one happening are much lower as they are less appealing to the terrorism crowd (with Spain, trains was all terrorists had to work with; in Bali all they had was nightclubs--are you afraid of nightclubs now??).

By the way-- Don't you remember 9-11? No one could hijack a train and crash it into a high rise and slaughter thousands.

And, that's what you get for commenting on my post without reading it all!

If you had bothered to read my entire post, you would have learned that what I was getting at was that by dispersing crowds of travelers into smaller vehicles that carry far fewer passengers, our transportation system would be much less attractive to terrorism than it is now as terrorists seek to cause mass fatalities. Airports and jetliners are natural terrorism magnets because they carry so many people. Trains that carry a few dozen passengers probably wouldn't interest them as much.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 9, 2007 3:07 PM

"Trains that carry a few dozen passengers probably wouldn't interest them as much."

Posted by: pythagoras

Even trains carrying several hundred passengers, like the double-deck French TGV's and the Japanese shinkansens, are much safer than a plane. With a plane, one bomb exploding virtually anywhere on board means the death of everyone on board, unless the plane is stopped or taxiing on the ground. With a train, deaths are likely confined to one car. I can't recall a passenger train wreck where everyone was killed. With planes, any wreck where there have been survivors is a real rarity, altho there have been some.

Posted by: ebonystone at November 9, 2007 4:00 PM

Somebody has a very poor understanding of Americans.

As for the Clowns in the Story, they, above all others, understand what is acceptable behavior. They should not be roll playing how Muslims are, as they do on Base, off Base.(???)

They were in American Civil Society where there are normes of behavior in Public, Of which, the Public does enforce, in Public.

Besides, the President requested of us to point these things out for the good of the People.

It is no fault but their own, that they were removed.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 9, 2007 6:56 PM

I do not know what really happened to Maher Arar, but as one of those taxpaying Canadians who have made him a multimillionaire, I have to say this: he's the healthiest and happiest-looking torture victim I've ever seen.

Posted by: angloirishslav at November 9, 2007 8:40 PM