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

[Anttech]

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

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).

"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.

 

[verty]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Anttech]

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

 

[Anttech]

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?

 

[Evo]

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?

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[Evo]

Good points BobG.

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