l would like to hear the real truth at what these muslims said , dont think its about a jet being too close.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 2, 2009 8:15 AM

An old adage comes to mind,"Better safe than sorry". Seems to fit well today. Good for Air-Tran and their alert people. Who knows but next tiem couldbe the real thing?

Posted by: gypsedrifter at January 2, 2009 8:17 AM

An old adage comes to mind,"Better safe than sorry". Seems to fit well today. Good for Air-Tran and their alert people. Who knows but next time could be the real thing?

Posted by: gypsedrifter at January 2, 2009 8:18 AM

How many seconds will pass before CAIR and the ACLU jump all over this?

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 2, 2009 8:23 AM

Who cares what their professions are? Why was that reported? At the end of the day people coming from an area know for its jihadist tendancies got thrown off the plane, good. If they were innocent they should learn to keep their f*cking mouths shut. I personally wonder if they weren't testing the response and evaluating everything that happened to them after they made their "innocent" comments.

Posted by: John_Doe at January 2, 2009 8:24 AM

So this Muslim family is going to a "religious retreat"? Could it be that they also intend to be present in Ft. Lauderdale to protest against Israel? I'm sure CAIR will be claiming Islamophobia, filing a lawsuit and, of course, the poor Muslims will be victims of a racist airline and intolerant passengers. Wonderful. Safety should never be second to political correctness.

Posted by: James at January 2, 2009 8:31 AM

"Where's the safest place to sit on a plane" Wink, wink nudge, nudge, know whadda mean, say know more.

It's not like a movie theater where you can choose your own seat, so what was the point of that comment except to intimidate the surrounding kuffar? They knew very well that their appearance stood out like a sour thumb, and exactly how their comments would be interpreted. They just couldn't hold back their contempt, could they?

Posted by: KrazyKafir at January 2, 2009 8:36 AM

"My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said.

Now there's a sentence!

Posted by: Seymour Paine at January 2, 2009 8:42 AM

"However, I take pains to conceal any incendiary titles from other passengers, so that no one is alarmed by some guy with a beard on the flight reading The Qur'anic Concept of War." --RS

I always love the dry wit.

I read once that in the '80's John Waters, the unconventional movie director, would carry a book he made up with the title "Urge to Kill" when flying so no one would bother him! Of course, that was many years before the Islamic Barbarians came into our lives and changed everything about flying. I'm sure Waters wouldn't dare carry that book now.

Posted by: darcy at January 2, 2009 8:47 AM

To paraphrase this in another way, picture this, "My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of fire in the crowed theater."

Not exactly the smart of conversations either and would also get you thrown out.

Posted by: senor doeboy at January 2, 2009 8:52 AM

Better someone is inconvenienced than that innocents are murdered. Isn't it, Ibrahim? Isn't it? - from Robert's posting.

-

Robert, Honest Ibe probably agrees with a United-Kaliphate based cleric that once said on BBC's Hardtalk that Mein Qurampf condemns the taking of innocent lives; but that, on the other hand, only muslims could be considered innocent because we infidels are GUILTY OF REJECTING ALLAH (the imaginary) and the desert rat that invented it.

That's certainly the only way we could get Ibrahim Hooper to say that the taking of innocent lives is wrong.

Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at January 2, 2009 8:52 AM

At first blush, even at second or third, it seems that the airline over-reacted.
Unfortunately, this gives CAIR a perfect opportunity to bleat about "racial" profiling, and "Islamophobia."

Posted by: give me doughnuts at January 2, 2009 9:13 AM

So this Muslim family is going to a "religious retreat"? Could it be that they also intend to be present in Ft. Lauderdale to protest against Israel?

Posted by: James at January 2, 2009 8:31 AM

My thoughts exactly.

Posted by: awake at January 2, 2009 9:32 AM

A previous article, "Air Islam":

"The Muslim states of OPEC have taken in about ten trillion dollars in the past one-third of a century. They have spent much of that money on wage-slaves, from Americans and Europeans at the top (doctors, oilfield engineers, and so on), then Koreans (construction of every kind) all the way down to those Filipino nurses, those chauffeurs from the subcontinent, those Thai and Indonesian house slaves (and slaves, some of them, in other obvious ways as well). But with what has been left over from their pleasure palaces, their guarantees of free everything to their own citizens and of nothing to anyone else, they have had hundreds of billions left over for the duty of Jihad.

They have bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms, the most up-to-date arms they can get. Some of those arms were put to use, as we all know, in the Iran-Iraq War (the best thing, for Infidels, to have happened, to promote division and confusion and alarm in the Muslim world since the defeat of 1967 -- but that earlier conflict took place before the OPEC bonanza appeared).

Surely the Saudis, who have paid for mosques all over the West, including mosques a mile from the Vatican, and in Paris, and London, and major cities in Italy and Holland and Germany, and all over North America, and who not only pay the tens of millions of dollars these mosques cost, but pay also for their upkeep, and pay furthermore large sums for madrasas, and for propaganda, and armies of Western hirelings, and magazines spouting their propaganda, and buy large, and obviously controlling, at times, interests in major media companies, have plenty left over. After all, they take in a billion or so every day or two -- and all without doing a thing, without lifting a finger. And so do does Kuwait, and the U.A.E. And so do another five or six or seven Muslim states.

Given that these Muslim countries are moving heaven and earth to promote the cause of Islam and to make things as easy for Muslims in the West, making sure they can conduct their Muslim lives and establish themselves permanently deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to consider enemy lines, the Dar al-Harb, should it be beyond the wit and pocketbook of these fabulously rich Arabs to pay for a worldwide Air Islam? If they won’t pay for a regular airline, they could at least spring for a collection of charters that will be for Muslims only, and on which only halal food will be served, and there will be no need to have any undue contact with Infidels -- that toilet-seat, those faucets the "unclean" hands of "najis" Infidels have touched (if you are a Shi'a Muslim, anyway). Muslims will have no need to sit by someone who might just open his lunchback and pull out a ham-and-cheese sandwich, or a bucket of ribs barbecued North Carolina style. No need for a Muslim woman to sit next to, or perhaps between, two dangerous men -- how would she gracefully go in and out without inadvertently having some part of her body perhaps touch some part of theirs, setting them all aflame? And still worse, still more unappealing, still more intolerable – so much so that it makes you, a good Muslim, want to scream in anguish, is the possibility that such men would be Infidels.

And now this: Dr. Ahmed Farooq, a very devout Muslim, is removed from a plane after chanting his prayers, and we are told that the Infidels should not have removed him. Can't have it. Just as, in Denmark, we can't have the exercise of the right of free speech. Or in France, we can't have the French state, or its Ministry of Education, enforce the laic rules of that state, and we can't have that Ministry of Education assign offensive topics to students -- the French kings, the French Revolution, World War II and the Holocaust, not to mention such writers as Voltaire with his blasphemous play "Mahomet" and Montaigne with is "Que scais-je?" skepticism, and so many others.

So why should we accept the Infidel nation-states and their ideas of what constitutes safety, or freedom from anxiety for Infidels? Why should Infidels be free from anxiety, if that anxiety gets in the way of the ability of Muslims to do what they want, when they want, where they want?

But wait. Remember, this is the United States. Muslim numbers are not yet great enough -- that, and that alone, explains the so-called difference between the position of Muslims in the United States and those in Europe, which both The New Duranty Times and The Boston Globe and so many other papers and radio and television programs have been devoted to. "It Can't Happen Here" is the theme, but of course it can and will happen: there is not a separate Qur'an and Hadith and Sira for Muslims in America, different from that available to them in Europe or in Iran, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. So for the moment we will have to not press this point.

What to do?

Here's a solution. The rich Arabs should simply have a fleet of planes, modest at first, and supplemented by planes that can be chartered -- small or large. This will be that Air Islam. Then suppose Dr. Ahmed Farooq, a very devout Muslim, with all that that implies (for all that that implies, please see Sura 9.29 and Sura 9.5 to begin with, then go from there), needs to get from Canada to California and back. He calls Air Islam, the totally-subsidized service of a consortium, funded by the governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.AE., Libya, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Oman, and by rich Pakistani zamindars and rich Muslims in Brazil, or in that dangerous "triangle" between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay, about which we do not hear nearly enough. Dr. Ahmed Farooq calls up Air Islam (operators are standing by) and tells them when he wishes to go and when he wishes to return. And if there is only Dr. Farooq himself, then a small plane is dispatched to take him -- but a plane nonetheless. If he doesn't like that small plane, then he is still free to travel, perhaps (we'll see about that) on an Infidel airline, with the safety and freedom-from-anxiety that it attempts to offer its overwhelmingly Infidel clientele, or perhaps by train or bus. It's his choice.

After all, if I take a Muslim-owned airline in the Muslim world, and passengers prostrate themselves or pray in Arabic, I expect it. I have assumed whatever risk or anxiety I, as an Infidel, might feel (actually, of course, on Royal Saudi Air one or Air Maroc or Pakistan Airlines, if such prayers are uttered and bodies prostrated, one would not be alarmed as one would be, for very good reason, if this were to take place on an Infidel airline, over Infidel airspace).

That should satisfy everyone.

Or have I missed something?"

[Posted by Hugh at August 24, 2006]

Posted by: Hugh at January 2, 2009 9:43 AM

Safety? A soup can is sturdier than an airplane. If you doubt it, look at the famous picture of the Lockerbie crash sight--Note how the remains of the fusilage flap about in the breeze, with barely more resistance than heavy duty tinfoil.

If this guy is really concerned about "safety", the engines are the last things to worry about.

"But the passengers said AirTran refused to rebook them, and they had to pay for seats on another carrier secured with help from the FBI."

And, I'd be willing to bet the FBI actually paid for those tickets.

Posted by: Stormwarning at January 2, 2009 9:52 AM

let there be more suspicion because their intent is not trustworthy, except, or course, among themselves.

they do not intend to watch out for OUR safety and best interests.

Posted by: boakai ngombu at January 2, 2009 9:59 AM

P.S.

I like to fly--at least I do, when people aren't behaving suspiciously.

Posted by: Stormwarning at January 2, 2009 10:10 AM

From a BBC comedy, though you really won't think it is.

Little Girl to Mummy: "Is it just Muslims that blow up planes?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-vybA54BF4

Posted by: Brian of London at January 2, 2009 10:19 AM

" Where is the safest place to sit on a plane?"

If there are muslims on board, the safest place to sit is the airport pub.

Posted by: pismopal at January 2, 2009 10:26 AM

"...

My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said. "The only thing my brother said was, 'Wow, the jets are right next to my window.' I think they were remarking about safety."

..."

Why am I not convinced that this is the whole story here? Very hard to believe.

And yep, CAIR is going to be all over this one. al-Hooper is undoubtedly on his way as I type, if he's not there already.

PS: Hugh -- the only problem with Air Islam is that we'd need to shadow every flight with some sort of air patrol that would have to 'react' if they were to deviate from course, toward say, a nuclear reactor, or 'economic, military, or symbolic' targets. And imagine the field day CAIR would have with that. Yes, better to require every Muslim to walk wherever they want to go until they provide us with some reliable way of distinguishing themselves from the Jihadis who (they) hide among them.

Posted by: Goob at January 2, 2009 10:38 AM

"At the end of the day people coming from an area know for its jihadist tendancies got thrown off the plane, good."

Alexandria, Virginia???

Posted by: FredFlint at January 2, 2009 11:25 AM

If I see Muslims getting onto my plane I think I would like to get onto another plane if I can. That is all I can say. I just cannot trust Muslims. No! Any burkas getting it is time to get off. It might be difficult to do? If possible I would do it.

Posted by: savsiv at January 2, 2009 11:42 AM

and everybody should send a thank you note to Air Tran...... they are watching...

Posted by: Tartine at January 2, 2009 12:19 PM

Northern VA, yep. The Jihadi paintballists, the islamic school, etc etc. Don't forget a number of the 9-11 terrorists got their drivers licenses from Virginia.

Posted by: John_Doe at January 2, 2009 12:23 PM

Once again my thoughts were of their lack of sensitivity when flying. I don't know about you all but I am very aware when at the airport, or on the plane, about saying the wrong thing. Don't mention bombs, don't mention terrorists, etc, etc.
Just the OBVIOUS stuff. Duh.

Do these people live under rocks? This conversation shouldn't even have happened, given that they are Muslim and on a plane with other people that aren't. What do they expect would happen?

Posted by: gymgal at January 2, 2009 12:23 PM

Tartine, just curious,what do you mean "they are watching"?

That AirTran officials are reading this site? That they are watching out for our safety vis a vis Islam?

In any case, yes, a note to AirTran is in order, so that the company is aware that the flying public is, indeed, concerned with potential terrorism.

Posted by: Vee at January 2, 2009 12:32 PM

"Better safe than sorry" is way, way too soft. I prefer "Better RACIST than dead" (and I'm not in the mood for parenthetically explaining that I don't mean literally "racist").

Posted by: DenverRodeo at January 2, 2009 12:45 PM

It is hard to feel much sympathy for this group. I fly nearly 200k miles per year and every time I board a flight I am greatly inconvienced. The endless lines and inspections are the direct result of the actions of a group of Jihadi on 9-11. They were carrying out their Jihad based on the purest interpretation of the Quran and the Hiddiths. Therefore the fact that a group of their co-religionists were simnilarly inconvenienced on a flight is perfectly reasonable.

I have not seen details on what they actually said. I have only heard and read the Muslim side of that part of the story. In what I've read, I have not been aware of any repudiation of violent Jihad or acts of terrorism by any member of this group. Had I heard such statements, I would perhaps feel a bit of sympathy.

Posted by: FirePig at January 2, 2009 12:46 PM

Their professions were given as an attempt to shame us for our suspicions. [How dare we suspect them of terrorism, they are respectable people because they are educated and make good money.] As if the whole Doctor/Terrorists in Glasglow never happened. The Collective-Psyche of the West still largely accepts the erroneous assertion that Muslim terrorists are all poor, disadvantaged, uneducated, unwashed, etc. So the media thinks it's making an extra point in their defense by explaining that they're professionals, who might sue!

This is just a case of Muslims' reputations catching up with them.

Posted by: nena at January 2, 2009 1:21 PM

When enterring another nation with the intent of subsuming it by colonization or through cultural imperialism, the invaders typically look at fault lines in that society, cracks in the social cohesion that they can exploit to further their own aims.

UNfortunately we have our share of schisms in the west, though there may be some differences in the particulars between nations, some generalities exist that are universal.

This article highlights another schism, traditionally the captain of the ship exercised great authority over his command. Yet in recent years the legal profession has intruded into the liberties of many traditional authorities. Many of these intrusions may be warranted, some of them are overreachings, the result of a slavish mentality to a principle that may not always be utile or even progressive, except in name only.

The Mahometan, has learned its lessons well, it also exploits schisms such as racism, sexism, economic tensions, political tensions between hawks and doves, and between leftists and rightists.

Abe Lincoln famously said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. UNfortunately some of our own elites have already done much division in order to usurp freedoms and prosperity that we once held, generously sharing those gifts with others. Except these new quislings and Davis' do not deign to share but like the dragons of legend amass huge piles of gold on which to rest their heads.

Posted by: stickman at January 2, 2009 1:22 PM

Exactly. We have not heard what was actually said. Remember, Muslims lie.

As for being inconvenienced this situation was an excellent learning tool for Muslims who believe they are superior to everyone else. Constant reinforcement until they "get it" is the order of the day. Muslims who have caused our present distress every time we need to catch a flight somewhere because of their following of their religion and it's imperative to subject the entire world to their brand of misery should most certainly partake of this distress.

"It was an ordeal," said Abdur Razack Aziz, the family friend who was also detained. "Nothing came out of it. It was paranoid people. It was very sad." So sad. Too bad. But I think something is definitely coming out of it, because the more the average American who is NOT a Muslim sees and hears what these pathetic whiners are up to the more irritable and the closer to action they come. Push us a little more, Ibby. Your day of reckoning is right around the corner.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 2, 2009 1:31 PM

I'm with the above commenters; we don't know what was actually said. Everybody who thinks that one Muslim turned to another and quietly said, "Those other airplanes are close to our plane, that doesn't look safe," and the passengers and crew responded by throwing them off the plane, raise your hands. No, I didn't think so either.

And this version of the story adds this:

"One passenger in the party became irate and made inappropriate comments," the statement said. "The local law enforcement officials came over and escorted the passengers away from the gate podium."

An irate, enraged Muslim? Say it ain't so, Mo'. And what kind of inappropriate comments? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: special_guest at January 2, 2009 1:57 PM

It will never get reported by the MSM. Don't want to appear Islamophopic do they?

Posted by: John_Doe at January 2, 2009 2:14 PM

"My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said.

Now there's a sentence!

Posted by: Seymour Paine at January 2, 2009 8:42 AM

---

"Robert Spencer and his alter ego Hugh Fitzgerald were discussing some aspect of Koranmpf security,"

How about it, Iblis?

Can Robert and Hugh sue CAIR?

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at January 2, 2009 3:22 PM

" Where is the safest place to sit on a plane?"

If there are muslims on board, the safest place to sit is the airport pub.

Posted by: pismopal at January 2, 2009 10:26 AM

--

LOL !

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at January 2, 2009 3:27 PM

I agree with Robert's view of accepting the procedures for safety. However, were this most other types of business transactions, I do not see a good reason for the airline to neither refund the money, nor book a flight on another airline, if not on one of their own. The passengers were cleared by the FBI. If we want to trust safety procedures, democracy, the justice system, and just social structure in general, then we ought to also trust someone again, albeit possibly with a caveat, once they've been cleared.

If these people really were innocent, then it's simply unkind to treat them so rudely as to take their money, not give them their seats nor their money in return. Bad Business, not nice. Being nice may sound like a platitude or a simple little detail to add to the mix, but if people can't be nice, always adding a little extra service and effort in their relations, then humanity would have little going for it.

Posted by: pre-Übermensch at January 2, 2009 3:57 PM

These peoples are totaly useless for us,the only way to don't have probleme with the muzz,it's not to have muzz in his country otherwise it's the HELL forever,that's all!The only contribution Islam has made to the Civilisation to the West has been indirectly, through it'ss thousand year of Jihad against the Christian world. Easy to understand,i think...This case is just another example of the ENDLESS war they carry against us at all level !
And too for me,when you are with beard in the face and woman with Burka or Veil at a western airport,where is the integration or assimilation at the new society.....Those peoples are parasites of Westen society,they want we adapt at theirs Barbaric customs and inhumane Beliefs systems.

Posted by: Pierre at January 2, 2009 4:04 PM

It is silly to ignore the way in which we now -- reasonably, not irrationally -- look at groups of easily-identified Musliims on planes. They worry us. And why not? Who brought about this state of affairs? Actions by what group of people make Englishmen in London, Spanish people in Madrid, Russians in Moscow, Dutch -- liberal, tolerant Dutch -- in Amsterdam, Danes in Copenhagen, and of course Americans, worry when we see, on a plane, a group of six or seven bearded Muslim men, with women similarly attired according to the commands of Islam, so that none of these could be thought of as Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims. It is irrational, it is absurd, to expect ordinary people, with the ordinary apprehensions, not to be worried, and not, if they overhear discussions of the placement of engines and the safest place to sit, and other matters pertaining to airline safety, not to be alarmed. Flying is never easy. We already endure the nightmare of increased security, and the billions of man-hours now lost in arriving an extra hour or two early for every flight, man-hours that are directly attributable to Muslim plots, successful in some cases, unsuccessful in others. Need one recall those three planes hijacked on 9/11/2001, two hitting the World Trade Center, one hitting the Pentagon, and a fourth sent plunging into a field in Pennsylvania, killing all aboard. Are we to forget all of the planes exploded in midair, such as that TWA plane near Athens, that the PLO took care of, or the Pan Am plane exploding over Lockerbie, or the Egyptian plane brought down by the co-pilot having his Sudden Jihad Syndrome, or all the other planes blown up, or seized (think of that Air France plane that ended up in Entebbe)? Are we to forget the plot that almost came of, to explode six or eight or ten planes over the Pacific simultaneously? What are we expected to overlook?

Would you, if you got on a plane with six or seven or eight bearded Muslims, with their wives in burqaed tow, and then overheard them talking about plane safety, not bring this to the attention of the plane crew, not be more than mildly alarmed but in fact in a state of utter panic? If you weren't, you'd be a fool.

Posted by: Hugh at January 2, 2009 6:31 PM

Here are some comments made at the website of the newspaper Corriere della Sera, under the story about the Muslims taken off the plane in America:

sono i musulmani che devono convincerci di essere persone per bene

2.1|19:20
Lettore_731472

Decapitare, infibulare, lapidare, uccisioni per ragioni di fede, leggi che violano i diritti più elementari, deliri contro gli animali puri e impuri (perchè un maiale o un cane siano meno carini di un gatto o di un cammello deve essere spiegato bene, ma è difficile da credere), vilenze e prepotenze intollerabili e legali nei loro paesi verso le bambine. Non sono io che devo riconoscere i diritti di chi viola le regole più elementari del vivere civile, siono loro che devono dimostrare di essere persone che rispettano gli altri. Quando si decideranno non sarà mai troppo tardi.
Se la sono cercata..

2.1|17:47
occhiodayan

La consapevolezza che ogni musulmano è un potenziale nemico viene perseguita dai musulmani stessi che prima emigrano nei paesi democratici e cristiani e poi pretendono di imporre i loro costumi incompatibili con i nostri.. Abbiamo lottato per millenni per avere una società democratica e loro ne vorrebbero una teocratica come quella dei paesi da dove sono fuggiti per paura della legge islamica.. In Europa ed i USA i loro diritti dovrebbero essere rispettati ma loro fanno di tutto per essere un mondo a parte e questo significa una sola odiosa parola: apartheid che i musulmani invocano di fatto dimostrando di essere incapaci di vivere secondo i dettami dei luoghi dove vanno a vivere.. Sarebbe come se recandomi in Inghilterra pretendessi di circolare a destra perchè al mio paese è così.. Credo che dopo il primo frontale mi adeguerei..

avete tutti ragione ma....

2.1|18:41
Lettore_721535

mio marito di fede musulmana non avrebbe mai fatto nessun apprezzamento all'aereo perchè sa che ora i controlli sono ferrei. sapete invece che cosa hanno fatto a lui la sua famiglia? tagliato fuori da tutti nemmeno gli auguri di buon anno e auguri per le loro feste. e allora come ci dobbiamo comportare noi occidentali nei loro riguardi? essere più rigidi e sempre più controlli perchè con questa gente c'è poco da fidarsi. credetemi li vivo da vicino e posso assicurare che sono dei veri falsi, ipocriti, bugiardi e approfittatori. non credete a quello che dicono che vogliono la pace perchè si stanno solamente creando un loro mondo da noi e poi .......

That last one, by the lady who is married to a Muslim, and whose family has essentially disowned him (because he married a non-Muslim woman who clearly has no intention of becoming a Muslim), is the most interesting.

She says that "with these people there's little to trust. Believe me, I live up close and personal with them, and I can assure everyone that they are deeply false, hypocritical, liers, and profiteers from every sitatuion. Don't believe them for a minute when they say they want to live in peace; they are building their very own world in our midst and then...

Posted by: Hugh at January 2, 2009 7:24 PM

In the YahooNews story posted by special_guest, this line appears:

'Of the nine passengers in the group, six asked to be rebooked to Florida, AirTran said.

One wonders what was up with the other three, that they no longer seemed to need to get to their "religious retreat".

Posted by: Vee at January 2, 2009 8:56 PM

Vee

I mean Air Tran is watching and paying attention to what is going on.
A lawyer and a doctor.......... were talking about the safest place in a plane
I don't believe for one second that comment.
This is not the truth.
One more time, the FBI is very careful . If it had been dealing with cab drivers or 711 store managers , the FBI would certainly have acted differently
But a lawyer and a doctor can get away with murder. Maybe one day, politicians and homeland security will understand that lawyers and doctors are the most dangerous subjects. They are the brains and the money .

Posted by: Tartine at January 2, 2009 11:08 PM

People, they said "bomb."

The Washington Post's account is quite different from that of FOX. The official story, which the WP willingly refused to report, is that they said the word "bomb." They said "I wonder where the safest place to sit is when a bomb goes off" a stunning example of Mohammedan scientific understanding, according to which, if a bomb goes off on a plane there's actually a chance that everyone won't die. It's also a stunning case of Mohammedan decorum, saying "bomb" on a plane. You don't say "bomb" within 3 miles of an airport and if you're a decent human being with a legitimate education who is even remotely assimilated into free-world society, even if you're a brain-damaged 5 year-old, you know that. It's also a stunning example of Mohammedan common knowledge, life experience, and literacy that they didn't realize that their seats were assigned even after they had boarded the plane. Had they not said >"I wonder where the safest place to sit is when a bomb goes off" they would have gotten into multiple altercations with the passengers in whose seats they were sitting. And that was before they started spitting and cursing at the air marshals. Yeah, they did that. Mohammedan manners. It's truly horrifying that people like this are (in)breeding.

"[R]eligious retreat in Florida" my ass. Apparently jihadis are organizing in The Happiest Place on Earth, since they were headed to Orlando.

And what was up with mentioning their professions? They were, of course, lying, which is very easy to get away with when you're a Muslim being interviewed by the WP. I saw these people. There was an older aunt or grandma or something who had maybe 3 teeth and appeared to have been at least 80, despite the fact that her son/nephew was about 30, the children were filthy, and the tapeworm baby factory had some kind of horrible rash all over her face, probably leprosy. It was NOT mere acne. It even extended to the undereye area, which acne and psoriasis just don't do. She could not have been more than 22, either, which means she was pimped into sex slavery at no older than 14, in America, since her son was 7. These are not people you pay for professional services. They are absolutely third-world to the core, I don't care where they're from, not that Northern Virginiastan isn't essentially third-world. By "anaesthesiologist" he means "drug dealer" and by "lawyer" he means "didn't pass the bar." It is unequivocally impossible for someone to honestly wonder "where the safest place to sit is when a bomb goes off" and to possess even so much as a second-grade education or even to have a kindergarten understanding of how gravity works.

If anyone knows which airline accepted them after ths, please let me know so that I can boycott them. $5 says it's Northwest. They love jihad so much they put their hub in Minneapolistan and they invariably demonstrate a quality of customer service and a work ethic that can only be described as "Mohammedan." An 8-hour flight took my sister 36 hours last week because they were de-icing one plane an hour, in very good, but cold weather in Portland, during Christmas/Hanukkah week no less, causing her to miss her connecting flight, then the flight they put her on was delayed twice and then cancelled, again, in perfectly good weather, due to nothing but sheer ineptitude. They didn't even pay for her hotel until my mother threatened them with legal action.

Pre-Ubermensch, they refunded the money immediately. How you decided that they didn't is beyond me.

Twice with Hugh and the Italian today. Mi piace. That last lady sounds like Lorfalcon 10 years ago.

Posted by: jdamn at January 2, 2009 11:19 PM

They picked the wrong airport to pull this stunt. Reagan National - the one across from the Capitol and White House. That's why AirTran and the FBI went full alert on these inconsiderate idiots.

Has anyone uttered the word "bomb" on an airplane before? With their supposed intelligence level, I can only imagine that this was intentional.

Posted by: Bingo at January 3, 2009 1:14 AM

Ah yes, jdamn. You see, I didn't follow the link to read the whole article. I wrongly assumed the whole article was pasted here. Anyway, it seems your remark was snide and that's really the only reason I'm responding, to let you know your tone in your writing is not appreciated by me.

Posted by: pre-Übermensch at January 3, 2009 5:23 AM

Hi Hugh

Regarding your suggestion of Muslim only airlines, I have another.

Seeing that many Mohammadens crave only Mo’s 7th century barbarism and reject all that is modern (except weaponry of course - where would Jihad be without it) why don’t they operate camel caravans between all destinations. Over the seas and oceans they could operate Arab dhows.

After all, if it was good enough for Mo, it certainly should be good enough for Mohammadens. We all know that whatever Mo did was sacred and is to be emulated by his loyal followers at all times and places.

From a safety point of view, you can’t fly camels into buildings. Even if Mo came along with his flying horse Burak and pelted buildings with camel dung and urine, there would not be any casualties, only a major clean-up job.

Posted by: Shafee al-Zindig at January 3, 2009 8:19 AM

Pre-Ubermensch, I was defending the airline, on whom I felt you came down too hard without knowing the situation, not that one could have any idea as to what actually happened from the WP's version of events, whole article or no. Before they apologized, Air-Tran handled the situation in an absolutely ideal manner, so I felt the need to defend them against your defense of these would-terrorists. They mistreated nobody and your attack upon them was undeserved.

Posted by: jdamn at January 3, 2009 2:13 PM