The Imams removed from US Air flight - the real story?

In summary, the conversation discusses a controversial incident involving a group of Muslim Imams who were removed from a flight for suspicious behavior. The WSJ published an opinion piece claiming that the Imams intentionally caused trouble by asking for seatbelt extensions and sitting in positions similar to the 9/11 terrorists. The conversation also includes a CNN report with interviews from passengers on the flight, although none of them confirm the WSJ's claims. The discussion touches on the issue of discrimination against Muslims and the idea of openly embracing one's identity. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for objective and unbiased reporting in such sensitive situations.
  • #36
Is an airplane a legally public space?
No. It is private property being used for the purpose of public conveyance. An airport is more of a public place, but not in the sense that as a park would be.

Airports are operating business, usually under some quasi-government authority, which is effectively a business. There are public venues, such as parks and beaches where the public may gather for recreation. An airport is a business, where the public gathers to make use of transportation (airlines).

Airports are required to accept more public accommodation than a private business. They are more public than a mall or shop, which are private properties used for the purpose of commerce, that being selling of goods or services to the public.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Evo said:
YES! There is absolutely NO REASON for it. It imposes on the rights of others. It is disruptive, it is impolite to the point that it is impinging on my personal freedom. Say the prayers silently to yourself if you feel you must, do NOT intrude your beliefs on others.
This in answer to the question: Are you arguing that prayer should be universally banned on public transportation?
This will kill the already ailing Airline industry.
 
  • #38
jimmysnyder said:
This in answer to the question: Are you arguing that prayer should be universally banned on public transportation?
This will kill the already ailing Airline industry.
You are kidding right? :biggrin: Banning outwardly vocal prayer on airlines would even cause one person to not fly? :rolleyes:

Besides, disruptive behavior on airlines is already banned. Pilots cannot take a plane up while any passenger is in a dispute with an attendant and planes are diverted and brought down and the passenger removed if a passenger becomes disruptive during a flight. Read the thread about the woman that lit a match to cover up the smell of flatulence, the plane was diverted to an airport for an unscheduled landing, she was taken off and not allowed to re-board the plane. And she wasn't trying to cause trouble, she was just stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Evo, the match example is completely irrelevant, as it suggested an actual bomb threat. Also you still haven't answered my question: why would Fred praying out loud bother a reasonable person any more than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?
 
Last edited:
  • #40
0rthodontist said:
Evo, the match example is completely irrelevant,
I didn't say it was relevant to the Imams, but now that you mention it, it is very relevant as an example that any behavior, no matter how innocent, if it affects passengers on an airline, they will be dealt with.

Also you still haven't answered my question: why would Fred praying out loud bother a reasonable person any more than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?
ANY disruptive behavor on an airline is not tolerable. Someone deciding to start singing country music would be told to stop, if he didn't, he'd be taken off the plane. It is not rational behavior to do something that violates the personal space of others onboard something such as a plane. If you do something and the airline personnel tell you to stop and you don't, you are in violation and you will be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Evo said:
I didn't say it was relevant to the Imams, but now that you mention it, it is very relevant as an example that any behavior, no matter how innocent, if it affects passengers on an airline, they will be dealt with.
It's irrelevant to prayer on an airplane, not the Imams specifically. It is irrelevant because it is not just "affecting passengers on an airline." The sulfurous odor was actually a possible indicator of a bomb threat, i.e. far outside the realm of mere annoyance, and therefore not applicable to anything you're saying about prayer being "disruptive" somehow.
ANY disruptive behavor on an airline is not tolerable. Someone deciding to start signing country music would be told to stop, if he didn't, he'd be taken off the plane. It is not rational behavior to do something that violates the personal space of others onboard something such as a plane. If you do something and the airline personnel tell you to stop and you don't, you are in violation and you will be dealt with.
If he were singing country music at a moderate volume, say about speaking volume, there shouldn't be any problem. Perhaps it's a lullaby for his child.

What if you are a Jew, wearing a yarmulke, and this offends some of the passengers because they are prejudiced? If the airline attendant asks you to take off your yarmulke, are you obligated to?

But you still haven't answered my question. Why would Fred praying out loud be any more troubling to a reasonable person than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone? Cell phone conversations are allowed in airplanes, if you use an approved phone.
 
  • #42
0rthodontist said:
It's irrelevant to prayer on an airplane, not the Imams specifically
I never said it was, that is something you've made up in your head. I cited it as a separate issue of why any innapropriate action will cause problems. I intentionally placed that in a separate paragraph with a separate discussion for a reason. The two aren't linked. You trying to link the two together is rather disengenious.

But you still haven't answered my question. Why would Fred praying out loud be any more troubling to a reasonable person than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone? Cell phone conversations are allowed in airplanes, if you use an approved phone.
I answered your question. YES. It would be just as annoying. And cell phone use is restricted on planes. Have you ever been on a plane?
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Evo said:
I never said it was, that is something you've made up in your head. I cited it as a separate issue of why any innapropriate action will cause problems. I intentionally placed that in a separate paragraph with a separate discussion for a reason. The two aren't linked. You trying to link the two together is rather disengenious.
OK, so we've established:
1. You don't think the match lady incident is relevant to the Imams
2. You don't think the match lady incident is relevant to prayer on airplanes

I answered your question. YES. It would be just as annoying. And cell phone use is restricted on planes. Have you ever been on a plane?
Yes, I have been on an airplane. Apparently (so I have read) the current policy is that you may use a cell phone on airplanes, if it is an airline-approved phone.

I asked a slightly different question than you answered. I didn't ask if they were equally annoying, I asked: why would any reasonable person consider Fred praying out loud to be more of a bother than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?

So by your statement here, I guess you agree that praying out loud is roughly as permissible as cell phone conversations. Would you like cell phone conversations to be banned on airplanes too, or are you agreeing here that prayer should be allowed as much as cell phones? Or are you going to change your mind?
 
  • #44
0rthodontist said:
OK, so we've established:
1. You don't think the match lady incident is relevant to the Imams
2. You don't think the match lady incident is relevant to prayer on airplanes

Yes, I have been on an airplane. Apparently (so I have read) the current policy is that you may use a cell phone on airplanes, if it is an airline-approved phone.
So, you have no idea what the approved use of cellular phones on an airplane is. :rolleyes:

I asked a slightly different question than you answered. I didn't ask if they were equally annoying, I asked: why would any reasonable person consider Fred praying out loud to be more of a bother than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?
For the last time, YES, any sane person would find them equally as annoying. Read that as not more annoying.

So by your statement here, I guess you agree that praying out loud is roughly as permissible as cell phone conversations. Would you like cell phone conversations to be banned on airplanes too, or are you agreeing here that prayer should be allowed as much as cell phones? Or are you going to change your mind?
You are nothing but a troll. Take advantage of your 3 day vacation and if you return, try not to make things up anymore. Trolling will not be tolerated here.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
I don't mind so much if someone says a prayer to themself, but what annoys me is when they direct it at me or do it in a public manner. It's like the difference between someone picking their nose and them saying "look everyone, I'm picking my nose".
 
  • #46
Evo said:
You are kidding right?
Perhaps it is I who should be asking you this question. First I would like you to answer this question: What is prayer? If I say "G-d, I hope this plane takes off on time.", is that a prayer. Suppose I say "I hope this plane takes off on time." What if I say "I hope my lab experient is a success"?

At what expense will the airlines handle praying customers? Will they hire prayer police? How much will it cost to train them? What will potential religious customers do? After all, airports and airplanes are not places of public accommodation, but train stations and trains are.

I feel that you are dug in on this scheme which I find offensive in its intent and impractical in its application. None the less, would it be too much to ask for you to change that YES to a Yes and lose at least a couple of those exclaimation points? In my opinion, they catch a lot more attention than a bucketful of context.
 
  • #47
Let's try to keep this "a level headed discussion", as requested in the OP.

Use of cell phones on planes are permitted only when the cabin doors are open (before take off) and once the plane has landed. Why? Because radio transmissions may affect the navigation systems which rely upon radio transmissions from other sources. Once the plane has landed, the operation of the plain does not require the navigation computer, so cell phones can be used. Other electronic devices, which do not transmit, may be used while the plane is in flight. Electronic devices must be turned off while the aircraft is taking off and landing because airline crews need the passengers to be able to respond to emergency instructions - i.e. it is a safety matter.


The match incident is relevant to the situation with the imams, if the imams refused to take their assigned seats. ANY disruptive behavior is inappropriate since it interferes with the safe operation of the flight.

Prayer is not necessarily relevant. As long as the prayer is not disruptive, who cares. If prayer is done loudly or in a way that infringes upon others, then it is a problem. The same would be the case if someone got up and started an oratory on any subject. It is a matter of volume, which at some point becomes subjective. If a crew members asks a passenger to tone it down, or speak more softly (lower volume), then the passenger must comply. If the passenger does not comply with the request/demand of the crew, that passenger may be arrested.

There are plenty of ordinances on public nuisance behavior or disorderly conduct - and ignorance of the law is now excuse.

The operation of a plane is very different than the operation of a train. The control of a plane is more critical than that of a train. In intercity trains, the engineer is isolated in the locomotive, away from any passenger trying to interfere with operation of the train. Local or commuter trains and subway trains are more like planes, in which the operator is separated only by a door from the passengers.

As for operation, plane crashes have much less survivability than train crashes, because planes are traveling at higher speeds, have more fuel, and are made of lighter less stronger materials (Al alloys vs steel).
 
  • #48
0rthodontist said:
"Free speech" does not mean "say what you want, so long as I can't hear it." "Free press" does not mean "write what you want, so long as I never read it." "Free assembly" does not mean "gather peacably wherever you want, so long as it's nowhere near me." And "free religion" does not mean "believe what you want, so long as I never notice."

Now, does this apply to an airplane? Is an airplane a legally public space? I'm not a lawyer, I don't know. I believe it should apply because of the inter-state nature of airplanes and the fact that most people would consider being on an airplane "being in public," as well as the fact that I've heard of various religions passing out pamphlets at airports, but I can't be sure. I believe it should be protected as a public space, but it's possible that it isn't actually protected as a public space. However, these freedoms certainly do apply to spaces that are clearly public, such as town commons, and apparently you believe that prayer should be prohibited in those places too.

Free speech on an airplane would be treated differently than free speech in the airport. On the airplane, the passengers are a captive audience. In the airport, people can move further away if a person's 'speech' is bothering them.

There's a balance between a person's right to free speech and the imposition allowing free speech puts on others. Generally, the choice is to give the right to free speech priority whenever possible, but there are reasonable limits. You don't have the right to loudly state "This plane should be blown up and all of you should die!" while in flight, for example. Nor does a person have the right to stand up and deliver a religious sermon in a movie theater in the middle of the movie.

A person afraid of flying offering a quick, quiet, even if verbal, prayer before take off wouldn't qualify as a significant disruption - in fact, they could probably get away with repeating 'Hail Mary's' all through the take off until the plane was in flight. If it looked like the person was going to keep it up through an entire transatlantic flight, I imagine someone on the flight crew would have to talk to them (and hopefully offer them a sedative), so resolving any issue that comes up is left to the crew's common sense.

In any event, the issue is more the failure to take their assigned seats and at least one asking for a seat belt extender they didn't need. With over a hundred passengers, the crew has to put safety first and were right to hold the flight until until the situation was resolved. I'd be more sympathetic if the imams had limited their demonstration just to the airport.
 
  • #49
BobG said:
A person afraid of flying offering a quick, quiet, even if verbal, prayer before take off wouldn't qualify as a significant disruption - in fact, they could probably get away with repeating 'Hail Mary's' all through the take off until the plane was in flight. If it looked like the person was going to keep it up through an entire transatlantic flight, I imagine someone on the flight crew would have to talk to them (and hopefully offer them a sedative), so resolving any issue that comes up is left to the crew's common sense.
I ask you the same question I asked Evo. What is a prayer? If a group of football fans discuss a recent game in which a "Hail Mary" play occured, how many times would you allow these people to say "Hail Mary" before they were restrained? Would you cut football fanatics more slack than religious fanatics?
 
  • #50
This thread isn't about prayer.

This is about how the real reasons for the Imams removal from the plane were not fully disclosed at first. The Imams claimed they were being persecuted for saying silent pryers, which is NOT the reason at all. We know now there were other much more disruptive behavior that was the cause.

To everyone, please do not drag this off topic with comments about prayer, it's not what this thread is about. I would like to stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
This is about how the real reasons for the Imams removal from the plane were not fully disclosed at first. The Imams claimed they were being persecuted for saying silent pryers, which is NOT the reason at all. We know now there were other much more disruptive behavior that was the cause.

I am still to see any evidence that what was said about them was true, (not sitting in proper seats, etc etc) or what they said was true. Seems this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened. Imams are very religious people, and the majority of them don't lie. In fact IMO more people hate Islam and would slander law abiding Imams, out of prejudiced than Imams would Lie. Yes there a few Bigot Imam's who preach Hate and Jihad, same as there are a few Bigot Christians who would slander someone of a different Faith...

If this was a Orthodox Priest, in his full attire I wonder what would have happened, or a bunch of Nuns..
 
  • #52
Anttech said:
I am still to see any evidence that what was said about them was true, (not sitting in proper seats, etc etc) or what they said was true.
Anttech, there was an eyewitness interview of a passenger posted in the CNN link. This has also been verfied by an investigation by the airline (see Washington Post article).
 
  • #53
Could you please quote whatever says they were not sitting in their proper seats? I don't recall such information being disclosed in either of the sources you mention.
 
  • #54
The Washington Post article says nothing about the airline verifying that they didn't take their seats. It only says
a spokeswoman for US Airways, said yesterday that the airline has completed its investigation of the incident and has concluded that the flight crew was justified in its actions.
This doesn't mean what was written in the WSJ article (an opinion piece I might add) was true, nor that the Post's article was telling the truth in saying that they wouldn't take their seats. The same goes for the seatbelts and everything else. All we know at this point is 1) They were praying, and 2) This somehow created a disruption, which caused them to be ejected from the plane. Until US Airways comes out and says "they didn't take their assigned seats and this is why they were ejected" (or something like that) I tend to, as Rach3 pointed out, assume them innocent until proven guilty (OK, that's for criminal matters, so let's only go with a preponderance of the evidence). The fact the airline, as far as I've seen, has not issued any such statement makes me believe the Imams version of things. However...

It is true that a captain has the authority to remove anyone from his plane if he perceives they are being disruptive. I tend to go with the captain, and that he believed it was being disruptive somehow. What is troubling is that the airline subsequently denied passage (though being a business, that is also their right).

As to whether someone praying in a public space should be banned or not, there are dozens of things thers do every day in public spaces that annoy the crap out of me. I don't believe they should be banned, cause I guarantee there are things I do that annoy the crap out of others.
 
  • #55
I'm not sure of details. However, it seems that the plane never left the ground. That could explain why the seatbelt extenders were not engaged.
 
  • #56
"Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

"According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061128-122902-7522r.htm

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.

"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

http://wpherald.com/articles/2303/2/Strange-behavior-grounded-imams/Imams-attended-religious-conference.html

Now of course these are just eyewitness accounts from people that were there.

And as the article points out "Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents. "

It's a shame that a group of respected, well educated men could make such bad decisions. Perhaps there is some reasonable explanation for their actions, so far they haven't offered any.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
I am not sure why there is all this fuss about the Imams.

I think that whenever people act strangely in a plane, Imams or not, the pilot and security personnel has an obligation to question the situation and take any action they deem necessary.
 
  • #58
Evo said:
"Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

"According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061128-122902-7522r.htm

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.

"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

http://wpherald.com/articles/2303/2/Strange-behavior-grounded-imams/Imams-attended-religious-conference.html

Now of course these are just eyewitness accounts from people that were there.
Yet the articles don't name anyone who was there, so we are completely at the mercy of the author to as to the legitimacy of those accounts, the same author in both articles, and in both articles presented by Moonie publications no less. Also, I'm still at a loss as to find anything in the CNN link or Washington Post article back the claim of the Imans were not sitting in their proper seats, despite your previous suggestion to the contrary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
kyleb said:
Yet the articles don't name anyone who was there, so we are completely at the mercy of the author to as to the legitimacy of those accounts, the same author in both articles, and in both articles presented by Moonie publications no less. Also, I'm still at a loss as to find anything in the CNN link or Washington Post article back the claim of the Imans were not sitting in their proper seats, despite your previous suggestion to the contrary.
The CNN article was changed, here is the most recent "Once on board, Knocke said, the six split up into groups of two and did not sit in their assigned seats."

Also there is video of a passenger describing the Imams changing seats.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/

"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
kyleb said:
Yet the articles don't name anyone who was there, so we are completely at the mercy of the author to as to the legitimacy of those accounts, the same author in both articles, and in both articles presented by Moonie publications no less. Also, I'm still at a loss as to find anything in the CNN link or Washington Post article back the claim of the Imans were not sitting in their proper seats, despite your previous suggestion to the contrary.
Did you watch the video clip and see/hear the eyewitness accounts?

How about this one: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/index.html

It gives direct quotes from named and unnamed DHS and airline officials.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
I like this part:

The passenger thought the imams -- who were speaking in Arabic and English -- had made anti-U.S. statements before boarding and "made similar statements while boarding," said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
How to evoke an emotional response right from the get off

Evo said:
Anttech, there was an eyewitness interview of a passenger posted in the CNN link. This has also been verfied by an investigation by the airline (see Washington Post article).

CNN said:
"We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind and will continue to exhaust our internal investigation until we know the facts of this case and can provide answer for the employees and customers involved in this incident," the airline said in a written statement.

This part is from the Airline, from the CNN Link they are admitting they don't know all the facts. Why are you trying prejudge what happened, without all the facts?

I will reserve the right to not judge these people until I know exactly what happened. To not do that Smacks of Discrimination IMHO. And I still believe this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened, because we dont.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
I will reserve the right to not judge these people until I know exactly what happened. To not do that Smacks of Discrimination IMHO. And I still believe this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened, because we dont.

Then express your judgement contingently. Say "if they refused to take their assigned seats, they were rightly removed". You needn't suspend judgement; doing so seems to me to indicate that you don't want to criticize a potentially wrong action because Muslims are involved.
 
  • #63
Anttech said:
This part is from the Airline, from the CNN Link they are admitting they don't know all the facts. Why are you trying prejudge what happened, without all the facts?
Wonderful cop-out. We can never know all the facts about anything.

We know a lot of the facts here. Enough to make educated judgements.

Right now, we have two categories of arguments here:

1. Arguing against facts.
2. Arguing that there aren't enough facts.

You guys are both refusing to make a judgement based on what are clear and well-documented facts. Rediculous.
 
  • #64
We know a lot of the facts here. Enough to make educated judgements. <snip>You guys are both refusing to make a judgement based on what are clear and well-documented facts. Rediculous.
Clearly the airline disagrees with you, considering they are reserving judgement. There is a case that they were being discriminated against, I won't jump on the bandwagon and condemn them until that angle has been investigated
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Then express your judgement contingently. Say "if they refused to take their assigned seats, they were rightly removed".

If they refused to take their assigned seats, and there isn't some reason why they couldnt, they would have been rightly removed if they failed to comply to reasonable requests of the crew.

happy?
 
  • #66
Anttech said:
This part is from the Airline, from the CNN Link they are admitting they don't know all the facts. Why are you trying prejudge what happened, without all the facts?
Anttech said:
Clearly the airline disagrees with you, considering they are reserving judgement.
Wrong. "Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for US Airways, said yesterday that the airline has completed its investigation of the incident and has concluded that the flight crew was justified in its actions."

It would really help if you would read through the thread to make sure your point is correct before posting, I have answered this aat least twice now.

This was linked in the Washington Post article on the first page. The Airline did finish their investigation and have decided that the airline personnel acted appropriately and are standing behind them. Because the Imams have filed a law suit, which is what this thread is about, there is nothing more that the Airline can say at this time.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Anttech said:
Clearly the airline disagrees with you, considering they are reserving judgement. There is a case that they were being discriminated against, I won't jump on the bandwagon and condemn them until that angle has been investigated
The airline is gathering as much information as possible, as well they should, for legal reasons. However, you are incorrect in saying that they are reserving judgement: they have stated explicitly that they support the actions of their pilots, while they of course have the right to expand/change in the future.

You, on the other hand, are an individual who has individual judgements and prejudices and like all individuals, you are capable of making judgements on whatever facts you have available. And you are not constrained by what prevents the airline from stating a clear conclusion (beyond that they support their pilots). It seems clear from your unwillingness to even acknowledge clear evidence, much less discuss it, that have formed an opinion, absent any factual basis.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Anttech said:
If they refused to take their assigned seats, and there isn't some reason why they couldnt, they would have been rightly removed if they failed to comply to reasonable requests of the crew.

happy?
It is a start. Could you acknowledge that it is a fact that they did not take their assigned seats?

Could you acknowledge that it is a fact that they asked for and received seatbelt extensions they did not need or use?
 
  • #69
Evo said:
Wrong. "Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for US Airways, said yesterday that the airline has completed its investigation of the incident and has concluded that the flight crew was justified in its actions."

It would really help if you would read through the thread to make sure your point is correct before posting, I have answered this aat least twice now.

This was linked in the Washington Post article on the first page. The Airline did finish their investigation and have decided that the airline personnel acted appropriately and are standing behind them. Because the Imams have filed a law suit, which is what this thread is about, there is nothing more that the Airline can say at this time.

I would tend to agree that the most likely truth is that the imams intentionally provoked the issue. Every individual action they committed was legal, but the combination of all the actions together are what made the flight crew's actions reasonable.

It is an effective way to embarrass the airline - the fact that there is no crime to prosecute lends credibility to the imam's story. It gives the tilt that they are indeed being persecuted for being Middle Eastern Muslims - and it's entirely likely that their ethnic origins played some part in the flight crew's decision.

There's precedence for racial and ethnic fairness taking precedence over risk, as well. Taxi cab drivers failing to pick up blacks or hispanics or refusing to take blacks or hispanics to certain parts of town because of a perceived increase in the risk of being robbed or assaulted is a pretty controversial topic. (http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Classes/PPA786/Readings/taxi.htm )

Interestingly, searching for the topic of taxi drivers and race, another controversy popped up in the search pages. Over 50% of cab drivers serving the Minneapolis-St Paul airport are Muslim. One of the controversies affecting Muslim taxi cab drivers is the American Disabilities Act, which requires operators of public transportation to allow service animals (i.e. - seeing eye dogs) to accompany disabled passengers (http://www.adainfo.org/publications/newsletter/2003_vol8_num2.asp ) and whether some Minneapolis Muslim taxi drivers have to pick up passengers carrying alcohol whether open or closed. I'm not sure if the controversy is anyhow related or just a coincidental side issue, but it does raise some separate issues about race, religion, and public transportation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
Good points BobG.

Anyway, I think all the threads on these subjects have worn themselves into the ground. Time to say goodbye.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Replies
109
Views
55K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top