In the aftermath of the explosion in Boston, Muslims again appear the target of arbitrary suspicion and detention. On a flight from Boston to Chicago, passengers became alarmed when two different passengers were heard speaking in Arabic. The two passengers were not traveling or seated together but the flight crew returned to the gate to have the two passengers detained.
Several passengers were marathoners. The two men were removed from the plane and detained . . . for speaking one of the most common languages on Earth.
Putting aside the prejudice in the treatment of Arabic speakers, it is illogical to think that terrorists would speak in Arabic if they were truly going to harm passengers. True terrorists try to blend in with population.
The airline bears responsibility for this conduct. There should be more than simply speaking Arabic to have a plane returned to the gate and passengers detained.
Just for the record, estimates indicate that there are 422 million Arabic speakers in this world. I am not sure what is required from Arabic speaking people? Should they simply not speak in public while traveling in the United States to avoid security alerts and detention?
SOURCE: KRMG
gbk,
Yeah, i knew that. Guess I need to watch my tenses.
But Dweezil, Ahmet, Moon Unit and Diva are still around — kind of a quadruple threat on any airplane.
Porkchop,
Zappa, unfortunately, is deceased by many years.
But, I get your point.
Just for general background:
According to Wikipedia there are between 1.5 million and 3.5 million Arab-Americans in the United States (depends on which survey you look at). 63% of them are Christian.
“The Detroit metropolitan area is home to the largest concentration of Arab Americans (403,445), followed by the New York City Combined Statistical Area (371,233), Los Angeles (308,295), Chicago (176,208), and the Washington D.C area. (168,208).”
They include such well-known terrorists as John Sununu, Darrel Issa, Jamie Farr, Frank Zappa, and Salma Hayek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American
Mespo,
For what it’s worth, I think reasonable people DID disagree this time.
The pilot knew that the men passed TSA security.
Is it an issue that this pilot clearly doesn’t trust the security procedures and personnel at airports he/she flies in and out? Maybe that’s the real issue. This pilot knows something we don’t…
…or the TSA is in on the plot?
All that matters is that we can definitively say that the decision was rational and not sparked by hysterics, right?
That someone spoke Arabic?
OK. I’ll bite.
What did the pilot know?
Logic and metaphysics are separate branches of philosophy.
And the answer is yes, I would.
porkchop:
Metaphysic all you want. The real question is would you put your loved one on that plane knowing what the pilot knew?
That’s where the rubber meets the road, all this enlightened analysis notwithstanding.
Mespo:
“It was rational because it had a basis in fact as we’ve explored in depth. You don’t like the facts relied upon but that doesn’t make it an an irrational decision.”
Only if you accept broad over-generalizations on a panic-by-panic basis.
1) Some terrorists speak Arabic.
2) These men speak Arabic.
3) Therefore, these men are terrorists.
I like this.
1) Most terrorists are men.
2) These men are men.
3) Therefore, these men are terrorists.
Let’s transfer that logic to some other issues.
1) Some women are bimbos.
2) Hillary Clinton is a woman.
3) Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a bimbo.
1) Gay men are attracted to males.
2) Young boys are males.
3) Therefore, gay men are attracted to young boys.
1) Some Christians are intolerant bigots who oppose gay marriage.
2) Barack Obama is a Christian (or maybe he’s a secret Muslim — I don’t know).
3) Therefore, Barack Obama is an intolerant bigot who opposes gay marriage,
Oh, wait . . .
Sling:
“How was it a rational decision?”
************************
It was rational because it had a basis in fact as we’ve explored in depth. You don’t like the facts relied upon but that doesn’t make it an an irrational decision. It just means you MIGHT have decided the question differently if you were in charge of the plane. Rational people can disagree. And just because they do doesn’t make their position irrational. I’ve never questioned the rationality of your position merely the judgment of relying on that position with the lives of a hundred or so people in your hands. As I said, I’m not second guessing the pilot’s call here and I’m pretty sure a jury in Boston wouldn’t either.
I might add that the pilot making that decision was sitting in a locked cockpit behind a reinforced door, so no terrorist would be taking over the cockpit under any circumstances. Moreover, while there are plenty of ways to make improvised weapons from things legally on planes, I think we can safely assume that there were no firearms or knives available to these Arabic speakers. What is the potential threat? That they excitedly would shout unintelligible things at other passengers? I suspect that would simply get them duct-taped to their seats like that guy on the (I think) Icelandair flight.
What Sling said.
How was it a rational decision?
Would you like to attempt a reconstruction of his rational thought process?
One ‘rational’ line would be:
1. Some passengers seem upset simply from hearing Arabic from these guys who have been cleared to fly by the TSA on this particular day in this particular city.
2. Clearly these passengers are hysterics.
3. I could try talking to them and pursuade them to see sanity.
4. I should throw these hysterical passengers off. Who knows what sort of disturbance they will create. They might start a riot.
5. Alternatively I could solve the immediate issue by throwing the brown people off.
6. Which course of action would give me the easiest life?
7. OK. I’ll sacrifice the brown foreigners. They are probably less likely to give me grief than would the stupid hysterical passengers. Sure they’ll probably get a hard time for a few hours, strip-searched, etc for no good reason – maybe miss their connections, lose a load of money or whatever. Maybe by just having being through an investigation, they will have a hard time on all future flights for all time. But hey, life sucks sometimes. I’d rather have their life sucking than mine. F**k them.
Sling:
Your point taken. My point was that these guys were leaving Boston on the day of the bombing and the pilot was justified in using his judgment even if TSA cleared them. He’s the court of last resort once the plane’s doors close. I understand the heightened alert status but the pilot gets to exercise his judgment. That’s the nature of the job. If it’s a rational decision I wouldn’t second guess it. My point all along was that this was no capricious action by the pilot as JT seemed to opine.
Mespo:
You must have missed reading my:
=============================
Best information:
Two guys speaking Arabic on the plane.
These two guys have been cleared by the TSA to board the plane – not just routine cleared, but cleared during a hightened alert following a bombing in the city and a search for the perps.
So second-guess the TSA.
=============================
The two Arabic speakers had not been stopped by the TSA on that particular day leaving that particular city.
The TSA would presumably have vetted their IDs, body language, full body scan / pat down etc.
It’s not a stretch to presume that they might have had a careful look at them – and particularly in the “temporal context”.
A subsequent decision was made based on what new alarming information?
It seems that some passengers were alarmed simply by the guys speaking Arabic.
Two innocent brown people were taken off the plane because some hysterics were wetting their pants.
It wasn’t a rational security decision.
It was a ‘bow down to the stupid’ decision. It was a moronic “Hey, someone pressed our ‘Stupid Button’ , se we have to go apeshit” decision.
I hope those guys get a good lawyer and sue the ass off the morons.
If anyone on that plane was really worried about travelling with Arabic speakers who had been vetted by the TSA on that particular day in that particular city, then I would suggest that:
1) They should have asked to be able to leave the plane. Alternatively the airline should have thrown them off the flight as their gross stupidity might represent a danger to everyone else if an emergency arose.
2) They should never travel by air again, as the TSA are clearly unable to stop Arabic speakers getting on planes. The two brown Arabic speakers were only taken off the plane because some quick-witted person noticed that they were talking in Arabic. Without that quick and decisive action, people might have heard more Arabic words during the flight. Is this what the taxpayers are paying billions for? It’s completely unacceptable that Arabic speakers can just walk onto flights and talk.
Sling:
Totally dismissing the temporal context of the decision doesn’t help your argument. This was not just any random day as you seem to imply.
And your argument that the same argument applies to African-Americans is likewise Swiss cheese. We know about the history of discrimination in charging and sentencing in this country, just as we know that Sunnis actually perpetuate 56% of the terrorist acts and admit it with great gusto.
You can’t just leave out pertinent facts to prove your point. You can have your own set of opinions; just not your own set of facts.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/alleged-ricin-mailer-appears-obsessed-with-illegal-organ-har Not too surprising……… alleged ricin mailer appears to be obsessed with a “shadow government” that harvests organs.
Best information:
Two guys speaking Arabic on the plane.
These two guys have been cleared by the TSA to board the plane – not just routine cleared, but cleared during a hightened alert following a bombing in the city and a search for the perps.
So second-guess the TSA.
Maybe they didn’t speak Arabic to each other while checking in and going through security. That is the only additional information that the pilot has – and which might not have been available to the TSA.
The TSA might have guessed from the appearances and IDs that the guys could speak Arabic, but maybe didn’t check. Preumably if they had checked or simply overheard them speaking Arabic, then they would have detained the pair.
Those guys might have spoken only English before boarding in order to evade detection, and are now possibly loudly discussing a hijacking procedure in Arabic after boarding.
Best security decision is therefore to panic.
.
Statisically speaking,
“While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned.”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/
So…
When a crime is committed, investigate the colored people in the vicinity.
It might be a good idea to have colored people sitting at the back of buses – preferable behind a metal grille so that nervous white people can feel safe.
Slingbuchet:
“By that reasoning any time an arab person is injured in an attack or anywhere they should be immediately suspect of being a bad guy’
********************
Statistically speaking and if you meant in the aftermath of a terroristic attack, you’d be on solid ground.