Imagine if you will that the entire US of A is actually a jetliner with the markings of “US Airways”. And in a post-9/11 world, the following situation happens:
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
“I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
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.”
A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”
We know now, based on evidence, that a Republican President will err on the side of security and preemptive action if there is a perceived terrorist threat. We also know, based on repeated statements by their leaders that the Democrats favor a post-attack posture. For Democrats, Terror = Law Enforcement Response.
So I ask my fellow Americans…. if you were on this US Airways flight and this suspicious behavior by the Imams began, who would you want as your pilot and flight attendants? George Bush, Condi Rice and Dick Cheney? Or Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Alcee Hastings?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
If “None of the Above” is not an option. Then, I’ll have to flip a coin.
What a great question for George Bush, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Alcee Hastings and any presidential candidate.
If I were a passenger on that plane, the pilots and flight attendants would be irrelavant…
…mainly because I would stomp the offending imams like narcs at a biker rally.
Eric in Hollywood
Musing right along….
If Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Alcee Hastings were in charge of the security of the plane, they’d admonish the passengers for their bigotry and then secure parachutes and bail from the plane.
I’ll fly Air-W, thank you very much.
“…mainly because I would stomp the offending imams like narcs at a biker rally….”
This “break some eggs to make an omlete” theory espoused by you, Bush and Cheney results in this:
The wishful beating of people who had no weapons, no plans for terror and they were released and flew home on another flight.
So then you beat up some religious people for praying, and sitting in different seats.
Good Job tough guys…
ROFLMAO!!!!!
keogh, yet again, shows how easily he can be dressed in an orange jumpsuit, and his hands tied behind his back.
Hey numbnuts, do us all a favor, will you? Read the story before you come here and spew emotional nonsense. The a**holes changed seats without authorization, placing themselves in the same arrangement as the 9/11 terrorists.
My God, I pity you.
And incidentally, I pray to GOD I’m never on a flight with you.
I’d hate to think you would have tried to PREVENT the passengers of United 93 from storming the cockpit, but you probably would have, huh?
What a tool you aspire to be!
I actually like Eric’s logic. Basically, anytime someone expressed their religion in public and I feel threatened, I should feel free to expect some punitive action against them.
For example, if a child was praying in school and my child felt threatened, I should expect the other child to be expelled, correct? Or if I felt the President was being a little faith-based and I felt threatened by the potential outcome of his decisions, I’m justified in expecting Congress to start impeachment proceedings, right?
When any traveling “group” decides to sit separately in the fashion described above, it certainly should raise some warning flags. Although I’d feel safer if all airline passengers were issued complimentary “steak knives” at the start of the flight as souvenirs.
I actually like Eric’s logic. Basically, anytime someone expressed their religion in public and I feel threatened, I should feel free to expect some punitive action against them.
The difference is, JAQ, that most people will see the difference between radical Islamists exercising their religion by hijacking a plane with the intent of killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, versus a schoolchild praying in public or the President expressing his religious beliefs.
Most rational people would find Eric’s actions justified.
Most rational people find yours to be antireligious bigotry.
The biggest thing I find suspicious is the last minute changing of seats. That, in and of itself, would make me nervous and given the information about how 9/11 terrorists were seated, makes complete sense to view as a possible security risk. I’m curious to know more details of the seat-switching and how it happened – how did they have other people give up their seats to get them to sit in that configuration?
What I don’t understand though is why praying loudly would be cause for alarm. If religious conservatives are fighting in this country to pray anywhere, then why shouldn’t non-christian people of faith be allowed to pray in an airport? So-called christians are well known for praying loudly say when protesting at abortion clinics. Does this mean these people should be branded as attempted bombers?
I remember once seeing a hassidic man davening under the roof outside the “Pirates of the Caribbean” building once at Disneyland during evening prayer time. Should we assume that hassidic terrorists were planning to blow up the happiest place on earth?
Coming from the left, I also insert a “none of the above” option, because they all suck. I’d rather have the trained air marshals, flight attendants, and pilots as my crew. Provided the details of this story are correct (and I have no reason to believe they are not at this time, having read the full story at several news outlets’ sites), I’m glad these men were removed from the plane.
Even as a lefty, I can state unequivocally that this sort of religious behavior which arouses the suspicions of a great number of people gets no eff-ing sympathy from me. Poor you that your religion is misunderstood. Maybe if you spent more time educating the public and working against the forces of evil in Islam the rest of us wouldn’t have reason to be suspicious.
There is a glaring difference between racial profiling in such events as traffic stops and behavioral profiling as it pertains to AIRLINE SECURITY.
Now, if I could only convince the rest of my lefty friends…. 😉
ND30, I have to disagee. When, as a society, we accept to react in fear from a group of people we have no proof of have any intention of harm, we’ve now become the prosecutors, not the prosecuted.
A group of people publicly prayed before boarding the plane and may have switched seats when on the ground. A spokesperson for US Airways says a passenger overheard what MAY have been an anti-US sentiment before take-off. These people had no weapons and went through secuity like everyone else. Now you tell me, was I just talking about a group of Muslims or a group of fundamentalist Christians flying to an anti-immigration rally?
I think it’s pretty disgusting when you try to disguise racism as protecting security. If an individual had a concern about these individuals, they should have left the plane. Not the other way around.
When, as a society, we accept to react in fear from a group of people we have no proof of have any intention of harm, we’ve now become the prosecutors, not the prosecuted.
Only problem is, we have a lot of evidence.
The men were acting suspiciously in the terminal.
They rearranged themselves in a fashion that has been identified to be consistent with terrorist intent and activity.
This, furthermore, was not just verified by passengers who you allege are racist, but by the gate agent, flight attendants, and a Federal air marshal — all of whom have received extensive and specialized training to identify such threats.
And finally, the hijackers on 9/11 made it through security just fine as well, thank you; no one really thought at that point that boxcutters constituted weapons.
“Racism” isn’t a concern for you, JAQ; it’s a meaningless perjorative that you use to manipulate people, just as a spoiled-brat child screams, “You don’t love me!” to force an indulgent parent. Al-Qaeda is not stupid; they have realized that people like you have demonstrated the ability to cow the American people into doing things that are patently stupid lest they be called “racist”.
My answer: Screw you.
I’d rather be called “racist” for seeing, recognizing, and acting on information than have thousands of people burned alive and crushed in the rubble of another skyscraper.
When you demonstrate that you can intelligently assess or designate threats, then you can call things racist. But the simple fact of the matter is that gay leftists like you are claiming that Christians and Republicans are building concentration camps for gays in the Pacific Northwest but patently denying the clear and obvious evidence of Islamic terrorism.
I have to come on the side of the pilots and crew on this one. Forget about what religion they were. There actions were suspicious, especially the changing of seats. I would hope that if this was any group of people that did this, whether they were praying or not, would have raised red flags. Heck, if bringing three ounces of water without a ziploc bag causes concern, I sure hope the behavior of these 6 individuals would as well.
Democrats are no longer all liberal. 21 Democrats won election to Congress this month who are Ronnie men. The most well known is his Under Sec Navy Jim. These new conservative Dems would not hesitate to kill Fascist Muslims. I worry more about the Republicans preaching to us about the ROP – a phrase coined by the Liberal in Chief 3 years ago!
“We know now, based on evidence, that a Republican President will err on the side of security and preemptive action if there is a perceived terrorist threat.”
Actually, he missed the memo and the twin towers of the WTC are now gone.
More to the point, Bush, Rice and Cheney are still flight attendants. We’ll elect a pilot and new attendants in 2008.
“gay leftists like you are claiming that Christians and Republicans are building concentration camps for gays in the Pacific Northwest but patently denying the clear and obvious evidence of Islamic terrorism”
Where does this stuff come from? It is hilarious! You should work for Colbert.
Okay, I get the REAL point of this post and the comments. No one–absolutely no one–should pray to Allah. One should only pray to the Baby Jesus, His Father, or the Heavenly Bird.
(By the way, what happened with the imams? Are they a sleeper cell? Did Jack Bauer get’em???)
NDXXX, well said.
sean-of-the-lower-case-clan, are you trying to push the old gryph-ster off the GP page as our new Daily Religious Bigot now? So far, you’re doing pretty good with those last cracks at #21.
Where does this stuff come from? It is hilarious! You should work for Colbert.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you aren’t aware of this statement from gay leftist Mike Rogers, sean:
Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to “internment camps” that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. “I know what happened to gay Jews who didn’t get out fast enough last time,” Rogers said.
In short, it comes from a cited, referenceable, gay leftist source — and from a gay leftist who is supported by numerous other liberal, leftist, and Democratic gays, as well as being paid by the Democratic Party and being a regular guest on leftist talk radio.
And you wonder why gay leftists lack credibility.
The new batch of conservative Democrats are more likely to kick terrorists off than the current and new liberal Republicans _ who BTW lie and tell us how conservative they ar while they grow the government and refuse to send the battleships to Iraq that Gen Zinni said we needed in 00 when he drew up the invasion plan.
Both parties have a large liberal group. But the last 6 years the GOP has been more liberal than the Dems and the public figured it out in 06. It Seems Nancy – who had been as liberal as Bush – is getting the message from the conservatives in her party. Bye bye Alcee. Bye bye Murtha. And also bye bye JFK who should get stuck in Irak!
15: “The men were acting suspiciously in the terminal.” Once again, why is praying in a way that is different in and of itself suspicious? Do yo say that you don’t support the exercise of freedom of religion, or does it only apply to people who pray quietly and in line with conservative views of how people should pray?
None of ’em, for God’s sake. I’d want somebody who could fly the damn plane.
The GOP has proved to be so inept and bungling in their governance of the War on Terror I can say with great certainty that while the GOP would indeed attempt to get the terrorists off the plane, they would screw it up and actually find out after the plane has crashed into a building that they have detained Cat Stevens instead. Again.
The men were acting suspiciously in the terminal.
So far the news reports only state that they began their normal evening prayers. Now to you and I, it’s not normal. But to them, it’s their everyday life. Mainstream Judeo-Christians would find praying openly and freely in an airport “suspicious.” What you fail to perceive is the difference between acting suspicious and being accused of acting suspicious because your behavior wasn’t culturally “normal.”
From the reports, the gate agent, for example, was “suspicious by the way they were praying very loud.” It might be distracting, irritating, or very odd but what would the simple fact that it was loud indicate? A terrorist with malicious intent seems unlikely to want to draw attention to himself. Anyone doing any amount of traveling have seen people praying at the airport before, and also often encounter people in very obvious native or cultural costume – Sihks, Muslims, Hasidic Jews, people in dashikis, dreadlocks, yarmulkes, hijabs. It may not be mainstream but it also isn’t inherently “suspicious.” Observent Muslims also tend to use the word Allah regularly in normal conversation as well, just as any observant Christian might say Praise God or Hallalujah.
The passenger who overheard their conversation caught two phrases – “U.S.” and “killing Saddam.” – two highly likely topics of political conversation for people of the Muslim faith. Frankly not any of us has been able to pass a day without news reports about Iraq and a majority of us also complain bitterly about the poor leadership that got us there. These men were talking openly enough that a passenger overheard the conversation. There seemed to be no implied discretion or attempt at secrecy in the men’s conversation as they spoke freely with one another. Why, for example, would they switch from Arabic – as it seems most of their conversation was conducted in – to English to get out enough for someone to imply “Death to America?” But then again, maybe Boris and Natasha needed to go over secret plan one more time to blow up sqvirrel and moose plane.
I’m still not clear on the seat issue. Some reports say their seats were already separated. Some say they moved themselves. Some say they were asked to be moved. That plus the fact that the reports also say 141 passengers recreened and reboarded a flight that in poking around should have been an Airbus320 with only 136 seats seems odd. But in any case, a terrorist is hardly likely to draw attention to himself by sitting in another seat or being asked to reseat. And you also know one of the imams was blind, right? I mean to me there’s nothing more deadly than a blind terrorist.
There is no report of a fight marshall having observed the proceeding that I see only that one became involved along with airport security police. They led away the imams in handcufss for “being suspicious.”
So what it boils down to is honest but ignorant people overreacting from a place of fear. This is the heart of prejudice and it was provoked because their religious and cultural differences from the men in question. This is the essence of racism. I don’t question the gut feeling of the employees and passengers. The Republican led effort to demonize all things Middle East and non-Christian has made sure that we’re afraid of our own shadow these days. But also don’t misunderstand that I have some goody-goody misapprehension and naivete about the serious nature of being watchful. This event in Minneapolis, however, was the result of poor judgment prompted by fear, not good judgment prompted by critical thinking.
Well said, Just a Question.
Bruce, except in the narrow mind of some of our GayLeft anti-Bush GOP-hating regulars here, anyone with a firm understanding of the last 12 years of the US govt’s interaction with the terrorist threat would answer the Bush Administration and GOP-controlled Congress would be far, far better choice at protecting Americans at home and abroad.
Those two groups working with moderate majorities in the federal courts have put into place and supported strong, effective terror interdiction, supression and containment mechanisms like the Patriot Act, the various NSA-based “secret” monitoring programs, worked closely with 100’s of nations to literally strangle the money supply to terrorist networks, brought hundreds of known and suspected terrorists into custody and containment, interupted terrorism recruitment programs, and made it clear to the world that the Clinton-era policy of appeasing terrorists was over… and sent the famous message that all of this applies as well as nation states that harbor terrorists.
The US Justice Dept is better organized to address terror threats, the FBI and intelligence communities are now working toward the same goal rather than protecting turf interests, and the govt has done a much better job at keeping Americans informed of the threat terrorists poise to our citizens.
Lindh, Moussaoui, Reid, abu Ali, Paracha, Lakhani, al Timimi, the InfoCom convictions, Dhafir and the radical Left Democrat and terrorist rights lawyer Lynne Stewart is as near a Litany of Prayer-filled Praise for those who sought to re-form the DOJ into something more than just a law office chasing Bill Gates, Elian Gonzalez and coddling al Qaeda superspy Ali Mohamed.
Of course, the GayLeftBorg regulars here can see none of that. They’ve long since left the solar system of reality. At least their leaders know better.
Just A Question writes: “And you also know one of the imams was blind, right? I mean to me there’s nothing more deadly than a blind terrorist.”
Does Sheikh Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Imam and convicted terrorist who master-minded the 1993 WTC bombings that killed 6 and injured over 1000 people RING A BELL FOR YOU?
You jerk.
In Sheikh Abdel-Rahman’s own words: “Oh, you Muslims everywhere, sever the ties of their (American’s) nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, instigate against their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their airplanes. Kill them in land, at sea, and in the air, kill them wherever you find them.”
Still care to defend the hopelessly stupid opinion of yours Just A Question that “…there’s nothing more deadly than a blind terrorist”?
Chirp, chirp. I thought not. History has to repeat itself because the world is populated with those who refuse to learn.
fnln writes: “Well said, Just a Question.”
History has to repeat itself because the world is populated with those who refuse to learn. And the idiots who follow those who will not learn, eh fnln?
#31 – Well said, Matt.
And NDT as well. The fact is: the six imams deliberately took a whole series of actions designed to fit the detailed profile, NOT of Muslims, but yes, of terrorists. (JAQ apparently doesn’t know about those parts – LOL) They did it quite consciously and intentionally. They would know the profile, since their lead spokesman is known to have extensive connections to terrorist-financing groups. Whatever the reasons for their chosen stunt, they deliberately acted as provocateurs on an airplane. For that alone, they should be in jail this minute.
And would the terrorist-apologists in this thread please note that invoking racism as a factor is pure bullshit gobbledygook, as **THERE IS NO MUSLIM RACE**, as Muslims themselves strongly emphasize and pride themselves on.
The only people that take Mike Rogers completely seriously and literally seem to be the people that hang out here who are obsessed with the guy. Seems to me that your statement about “”gay leftists like you are claiming that Christians and Republicans are building concentration camps for gays in the Pacific Northwest” is really about (just) Mike Rogers. Who these “gay leftists like you” are is a mystery. The quote you then provide says “internment camps,” not “concentration camps,” but that seems to be your slippery style, expanding the scope of who says what and what they actually say, since you imagine people to be the way you want them to be instead of knowing who they actually are. How many times can you type the phrase “gay leftists like you”? How many times does it take for you to then actually believe the stuff that you conjure up, that you ascribe to your fantasmic “gay leftists like you” group from the scant quotes that you can take up and proof-text your fantasies with?
“terrorist-apologists…is pure bullshit gobbledygook.”
“Terrorist-apologists” IS pure bullshit gobbledygook. Please pretend, just for a moment, that you aren’t the only true patriot America-loving American on the Internet. Or in the USA. The posturing is tiresome.
#23. “And you wonder why gay leftists lack credibility.” Question: with whom?
Gay conservatives, on the other hand, are ardently attended to, embraced and supported as legitimate political players in the GOP. Thank Allah for that!
A blind terrorist would kick Michigan-Matts ass any day of the week.
Little Matty, why do you lie like a rug so often? You know full well that you are taking the “blind terrorist” comment out of the context of him being a specific threat on an in-flight airplane.
If your cause is to increase awareness about the threat of terrorism, it is ill-served by the stupid rhetorical parlor tricks you enjoy playing.
That leads me to believe that your actual cause must be sheer self-aggrandizement, the wish to be the biggest bully on the block, more than any actual interest in the subject at hand.
I doubt that terrorists would make themselves recognized by loud prayer and talking about Al Qaeda. The only action that was apparently suspicious was the moving of the seats, and that’s enough for me. I believe that the pilots and crew made the correct action in this case. But I’m am also glad that they apparently were innocents. Unfortunately, they were inconvenicenced and had to take another flight. Yeah, not great. But many people have to. I had to take another flight once because I was only 40 minutes early and not 45 minutes early. I got over it. I’m sure they will as well.
Patrick said…
“If your cause is to increase awareness about the threat of terrorism…”
Patrick, considering that the majority of your post contains no actual argument, I have to limit my response to the above quote.
Matt shouldn’t have to “increase awareness of the threat of terrorism.” This statement of yours only lends credence to the notion that very few of you on the left can even acknowledge that such a threat exists.
I’ve been trying to get at least one of you to do so, but all I get in response are blanket indictments of the Bush administration. Hell, none of you can even bring yourselves to admit that perhaps Bubba might have played a part in the ascent of islamofascism.
Enough already, okay? If you can’t even accept that there is a very vocal and persistent element of islam that isn’t the slightest bit interested in “dialogue,” and wishes nothing more than worldwide submission to sharia, then we really have nothing more to discuss, do we? You think I’m some paranoid right-wing nut, and I’m equally convinced you won’t get the message until you’re sitting there in an orange jumsuit with your hands tied behind your back.
This entire argument is moot, and the conversation is bullshit. Nothing more, really, than some tragic mexican standoff.
Eric in Hollywood
#38 – Sorry Pat. The imams committed a whole series of actions they intended to set off the air crews’ suspicions, including asking for seat belt extensions – which airline crews know could be used as weapons – when none of them were fat or in any way needed them.
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE1NQ==
This blog will be the last to admit it.
On the imams’ intentionally suspicion-raising actions, and photographic proof that they had no need seat belt extensions: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015988.php
I know that there were even further intentionally suspicion-raising actions they did; I just can’t pull up a complete list right now in the search facility.
On the fact that their spokesman (at least) has pro-Islamist political agenda: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014120.php
Moving to the opinion sphere: Must-see video of NBC’s Tucker (rightly) hammering the CAIR spokesperson’s claims on this whole issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWx7d77_IPo
P.S. Having recently flown on a Muslim country’s airline, to a Muslim country where I learned about Islam from a Muslim theology professor, I can assure you of the following:
(1) Even when Muslims are in the majority and on a Muslim country’s airline, they pray in their seats – in silence.
(2) The six imams’ religion in NO way required them to pray ostentatiously and in a way that would unnerve fellow travellers; indeed, quite the opposite – their religion permits them to adjust their behavior when among unbelievers and requires them to put kindness to fellow travellers far ahead of personal showboating.
(3) Had the six imams engaged in the behavior they did on a Muslim country’s airline – think SaudiAir, EgyptAir, etc. – they probably would now be in that country’s jail, I think.
#35 – LOL – jimmy, if you find me so tiresome: then **DON’T READ ME.** (or even consider leaving?) 🙂
What seems obvious here is that liberals and leftists, when called out on their attempts to use racism as a perjorative, have now switched to alleging cultural or religious bias in the same fashion.
Unfortunately, while they were reacting in their typical knee-jerk ideological fashion, attempting to smear those who reacted to this threat by claiming they overreacted to “praying”, perhaps what the gate agents knew needs to be made known:
Witnesses said the men prayed in the terminal and made critical comments about the Iraq war, according to the police report, and a US Airways manager said three of the men had only one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
An airport police officer and a federal air marshal agreed that the combination of circumstances was suspicious, and eventually asked the men to leave the airplane, the police report said.
Plus, as Calarato pointed out above, not only did the men who requested seatbelt extensions visibly not need them, they actually set them on the floor instead of using them. MORE suspicious behavior.
And then we get the pseudo-intellectuals like JAQ trying to cast doubt on the airline:
That plus the fact that the reports also say 141 passengers recreened and reboarded a flight that in poking around should have been an Airbus320 with only 136 seats seems odd.
For those of you who wish to be informed, a cursory check of the US Airways website reveals that, indeed, an Airbus A320 has, in their configuration, between 142 and 150 seats.
Again, note how the liberals scream “racism”, then “cultural bias”, all the while doing their best to point fingers at conservatives and away from the growing mountain of evidence provided by, not just jumpy passengers, but professionals who have been trained to anticipate and recognize potential terrorist activity AND have access to information, such as ticket purchase and baggage, that further enhances identification and localization of threats. They smear these hardworking professionals as making decisions based on “fear”, not on “critical thinking” — which they define as making aspersions about how “it couldn’t be possible to have 141 people on a 136-seat aircraft” without checking just how many seats said aircraft have.
And for a final piece of spite:
If your cause is to increase awareness about the threat of terrorism, it is ill-served by the stupid rhetorical parlor tricks you enjoy playing.
And meanwhile, Gryph, you turn a blind eye to the flat-out fibs and smears that your ideological similars are using to explain why these people should NOT have been stopped.
I’ll take Matt’s “rhetoric” any day over the attempts by your fellow leftists and Democrats to smear, sabotage, and otherwise block the tools that not only WILL protect our flying public, but in several cases, like this one, already HAVE.
#41 – And now you’re 0-for-2, jimmy.
This blog is filled with Bush critics – chief among them, the blog’s main authors. Someone hasn’t been paying attention again! 🙂 Or would rather respond to the GP blog of his own imagining, than the real thing. This is why, a goodly chunk of the time, I don’t read you jimmy. Bye now.
The only people that take Mike Rogers completely seriously and literally seem to be the people that hang out here who are obsessed with the guy.
Or the people who post to his site, or to the sites that link to him where you post, like Pam’s House Blend, JoeMyGod, and Americablog, or the radio outlets like Air America that give him airtime, or……
Funny how you so obviously hang on the words of someone who you don’t take seriously or literally, or how you raise no fuss about someone who makes irrational statements like his being put forward to represent the “gay community”, or….
I have not argued that stopping the Imams was wrong, what I do say is that Michigan-Matts, Caralato’s etc., attacks on others are stupid decietful tricks.
Actually I think it quite likely that the Imams staged the event as a stunt to wail on their breasts in the media about U.S. anti-Muslim bias. If they were terrorists, they were extremely stupid ones. As has been pointed out many times, real terrorists would be far more likely to do everything not to draw attention to themselves.
As far as actual anti-Muslim bias goes, whether in profiling or not, well, I’m always reminded of a Muslim editorialist that I read in the Lebanon Star a few years ago. Basically he said that Muslims need to face up and deal with the fact that the majority of the worlds terrorists are Muslim. Its the one fact you can’t escape by notions of multi-cultural egalitarianism.
#47 – It looks like poor old Gryph needs to fling mud at me again! LOL. For the record:
(1) As of now, I have not attacked anyone in this thread.
(2) What I have said at #33 and on down has been accurate and on-topic.
(3) By contrast, Gryph:
– Does not offer logical arguments, facts, evidence or citations.
– Does offer school-girls insults.
‘Nuff said.
Actually I think it quite likely that the Imams staged the event as a stunt to wail on their breasts in the media about U.S. anti-Muslim bias. If they were terrorists, they were extremely stupid ones. As has been pointed out many times, real terrorists would be far more likely to do everything not to draw attention to themselves.
In an environment where people would actually do something about terrorism, yes.
But as we see here, there are leftist liberals like jimmy, Kevin, Just A Question, and others who, had they been in charge, would not have lifted a finger or batted an eye — and would in fact have prevented anything from being done by their subordinates, calling such actions “racist” and “culturally insensitive”.
And that, in my opinion, is why they picked Minneapolis — a midsized airport with less than state-of-the-art equipment and surveillance, true, but more importantly, a solidly-blue city in a blue state that just elected a Muslim to high office and has a history of kowtowing to minorities who are obviously misbehaving, such as turning a blind eye to the sexual harassment antics of their lesbian fire chief, for years. It’s the same reason illegal immigrants and drug addicts flock to San Francisco; what better place than a city that openly proclaims it will not enforce Federal immigration or drug laws?
al-Qaeda has realized the usefulness of Democrats and leftists refusing to profile, refusing to allow anyone else to profile, and loudly screaming about how people who raise questions about the suspicious behavior of others are “racists” and “not culturally sensitive” — all out of contempt and hatred for Bush, Republicans, and conservatives, and because doing so would anger their special-rights minority bases.
Two in first class, two near the doors, two in the rear, requesting seat belt extensions (a strap with a large metal buckle) that they did not attach but left on the floor under their seats.
It’s called a “security probe”.
While we’re concerned about hurting the feelings of “imans”, they are plotting your death.
Wake up.
Gryph, I’m amazed at the tone and temper expressed in your baseless emotional screetch. It must be time for some intervention –I wish there was someone nearby who could physically conduct you into the Land of Reality.
Just a Question tried to downplay a perceived threat of the Imams by claiming that one of the Imams was blind… and in her/his own words: “And you also know one of the imams was blind, right? I mean to me there’s nothing more deadly than a blind terrorist.”
I pointed out that the last blind Imam terrorist was indeed a threat, was indeed a killer, did indeed plot and plan and murder innocent Amercians and –with the help of his leftwinged Democrat lawyer while in prison– continued to pose a threat to American citizens. 6 people died, 1042 were injured in the 1993 WTC bombing.
Why you find a need to defend these kind of people is amazing, Gryph. There is no misrepresentation. Just A Question wrote stupidly that one of the Imams was blind and blind terrorist isn’t a threat. Simple, really, when I turn on the truth of reality’s bright light.
It’s why history has to keep repeating and repeating and repeating. You and Just A Question can’t learn the lesson the first time. I think the passion that brings you to your Bush-hatred 24x7x365 is again clouding you ability to discern truth and learn a simple lesson.
Blind Imams can be a real, potent terrorist threat as recent history proves. That you and Just A Question care to overlook that fact is amazing.
I think if you would just stay with the facts, Gryph, reality and truth will not be so evasive to your grasp. Simple really.
Just some clarification.
Three of the men may have had one-way tickets, but many people fly with one way tickets and no checked baggage. Business commuters travel this way often. So much so that the only time it raises a red flag is when the tickets are paid for in cash. I can’t find any reports noting this to be the case. Also recognize that that also means that three had regular round-trip flights.
I see that only one of the men requested an extension, perhaps for himself and his companion. I don’t know their motivation and it was the flight attendant who determined visually that she thought they didn’t need it. Who’s to say? Despite that though, with the possibility of an armed air marshall on board, it seems an odd choice of weapon.
And finally, proving that the Airbus is larger than I was able to research only means that there were some extra seats floating around and should have provided some flexibility in seating. Perhaps though Muslims just aren’t allowed that flexibility like the rest of us.
The more I read, the more it seems likely that the imams decided to have little fun and stir up the conservative hornet’s nest. If their goal was to prove profiling is alive and well, despite any real indications of their potential threats as terrorists, they’ve succeeded brilliantly and conservatives have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. The unfortunate part is the more times people cry wolf without clear, rational thought, the harder it become to truly root out potential terrorists.
I think i’d like Barney, Snoopy and Garfield as my pilots. Really, what a stupid analogy.
Still, I might walk off that flight. That’s not being racist, just realistic. Of course, if an Islamic terrorist was going to hijack a jet, they probably wouldn’t be broadcasting it like that. They certainly didn’t on 9/11.
#50 –
In other words, JAQ, you’ve just conceded they set out deliberately to disturb, unnerve and offend the air crews serving them, and their fellow travellers.
Thank you for the concession. But please note: What they did is wrong. They should have spent a couple nights in jail for that alone. And, incidentally, their actions were against their professed religion (Islam).
Indeed: One thing that has been re-assuring to me in this is that, after five years, air crews and travellers remain alert to terrorist threats.
Gryph writes: “If they were terrorists, they were extremely stupid ones.”
History has to repeat itself because gryph can’t learn the lesson after one, two, three or four incidents. Why, Gryph, do you continue to think that terrorists have to be supersmart, superspies ala James Bond? From your spinning, it’s clear you think terrorists can’t be stupid.
Newsflash, Gryph. Terrorists like shoe-bomber Reid are stupid. But not only that, terrorists are also cowards, Gryph. Just like guys who write: “A blind terrorist would kick Michigan-Matts ass any day of the week.” (Gryph at #37) LOL. What a cowardly thing to write, Gryph –and it isn’t germane. But it is all you; 100% Gryph.
Thanks for the comments, Calarato, NDXXX.
NDXXX, let’s not forget that during the “Gays Work for the GOP” smear fest of last month, the GayLeftBorg’s #1 pilot was out in force on left-of-center MSM shows like AndersonCooper, Larry King and MSNBC’s rathole of newsreaders.
jimmy gets it wrong once again.
Thanks for pointing out the credibility Mike Rogers has speaking for the GayLeft and radical Democrats in America. It’s almost like listening to guys like MSM’s left of center and liberal apologist Alan Colmes try to discredit Michael Moore as not being a radical Democrat… it’s so funny but I can appreciate how guys like jimmy can avoid reality with such success.
Caralato:
Oh yeah? Well I’m rubber and you’re glue. What you throw at me bounces off and sticks to you. (sticks out tongue)
And doesn’t Stan Lee have a copyright on the “‘Nuff Said” phrase?
I don’t even have to say anything anymore: Gryph hangs himself.
The more I read, the more it seems likely that the imams decided to have little fun and stir up the conservative hornet’s nest. If their goal was to prove profiling is alive and well, despite any real indications of their potential threats as terrorists, they’ve succeeded brilliantly and conservatives have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
That is quite probably the most desperate and contradictory justification I have yet read.
You claim that these people were trying to prove that they’d be “profiled” — by doing numerous things that anyone with half a brain, and especially airport and airline personnel trained to do so, would recognize as indicative of terrorist activity.
It’s sort of like a black person who wants to prove that the police discriminate on the basis of race — so she goes out and runs red lights at 40 mph over the speed limit, then, when she’s stopped, claims she was “profiled” because of her race.
And I really loved this grasping attempt at rebuttal:
And finally, proving that the Airbus is larger than I was able to research only means that there were some extra seats floating around and should have provided some flexibility in seating. Perhaps though Muslims just aren’t allowed that flexibility like the rest of us.
Uh huh. And that’s why, when I flew home from Chicago last week, every single group that was asking for reseating on the (full) flight was asking to sit TOGETHER, not as far as they could possibly get from each other and in a fashion which miraculously put them in excellent position to control both ends of the cabins.
Furthermore, two of them moved themselves from coach to first class. When questioned, they claimed they had gotten upgrades, even though their boarding passes didn’t show it AND the gate agent specifically stated that they had been told that no such seats were available.
Or this was even better:
I see that only one of the men requested an extension, perhaps for himself and his companion.
Yes, because, as we all know, the Muslim religion requires the faithful to be belted in using only one seatbelt. Furthermore, the men didn’t even attach them, but instead stuck them on the floor. Why on earth would you request a seatbelt extension that you ostensibly needed — and then not use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
But this…THIS sums it all up.
The unfortunate part is the more times people cry wolf without clear, rational thought, the harder it become to truly root out potential terrorists.
Bluntly put, you are claiming that these men set out to be deliberately provocative — but then claiming it was neither “clear” or “rational” on the part of the trained people who reacted to react accordingly.
Furthermore, what Calarato pointed out is spot-on — if it was a deliberate provocation on their part, they belong in jail, just as someone who tries to claim that their bomb threat was just to check how people reacted.
Now, I realize that, as a good Democrat, you must automatically assume racism and cultural bias when Muslims or any other minority are held accountable for their behavior; it’s particularly amusing to watch Chase, for example, apologize and rationalize for why he, a good Democrat, would have gotten off that flight and hoped that his doing so wouldn’t offend the imams, because obviously any “good terrorist” wouldn’t broadcast their intentions, but he just wanted to be safe…..
But the rest of us see matters quite differently — and have no intention of allowing paralysis by political correctness to kill thousands more people.
So, let’s summarize. The six imams took AT LEAST the following actions, maybe more, intending to unnerve the air crews and their fellow travellers:
(1) They went to great lengths to position themselves as terrorists. “Two in the front row first-class [for which they had NOT bought tickets nor been given any other entitlement; they just demanded it after takeoff], two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.”
(2) Three of them (not one) asked for potential weapons: heavy seat belt extenders that they neither needed nor used.
(3) They loudly, ostentatiously chanted “Allahu Akbar!” and cursed the United States (e.g., for Iraq).
Not necessarily in that chronological order. But all 100% deliberately.
Isn’t it obvious who is in the wrong here? Or that US Airways acted rightly? Umm, it should be obvious.
Calarato and ND30 highlight the biggest problem with the whole incident. There’s no one consistent report of what actually occurred.
Reading between the mainstream media and conservative blogs it’s clear there’s a big discrepancy about the events. The conservative blogs and reporters seem to report the event in a more damning way. In this version, the imams were “shouting” their prayers “yelling” Allah and anti-American epithets as the flight was being called to board. When they got on the plane they rearranged themselves in a “pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.” They then all requested seat belt extension to use as weapons. This is typified in the Washington Times report unbiasedly titled “How the Imams Terrorized an Airliner.”
The mainstream news tells a different story. The imams were praying conspicously but not shouting. Passengers “overheard” cherry-picked snippets of normal conversation, “killing Saddam” and “U.S.” and may have included the word Allah. When on board the news reports indicate a discrepancy as to whether the imams altogether moved to new spots, that some moved to join others, were asked to be moved, were asked to be moved and moved anyway when told no. And neither stream of reporting indicates where they were seated to begin with. But most of the mainstrem reports indicate that only one imam asked for a seat-belt extension, perhaps also receiving one for his companion. Pictures indicate that a few of the flyers were not so trim. They also note that one of the imams had to be escorted on to the plane because he’s blind. My point in mentioning it before is that a blind terrorist would be a hinderance in an operation like a 9/11 plane scenario.
I am conscious of the fears of the passengers. We all remember the days following 9/11 and the scrutiny we viewed other passengers with. But it stands to reason that in the fight against terrorism, we will avert some problems and we will miss some to grievous consequence. We will make some good calls and we will make some bad calls and this was one such bad call. For example, with nearly every train system in the US, and most sea ports and borders unsecured against true terrorist activity, we give in to the fear of circumstantial behavior against these individuals. It was a similar bad call that started the snowball of the Iraq debacle. In a time when we need clearer thinking to secure our future we cannot allow people like Calarato and ND30 to propel us into a delve of McCarthyist insecurity and fear of fellow Americans where Muslim equal terrorist. It’s this kind of thinking that drives conflicts we find in the Middle East – an us v. them, cowboy in white/cowboy in black mentailty.
50: Sorry bud, but if everything reported here is true (situating themselves near exits, , moving to areas for which they didn’t have tickets, one-way tickets, no checked baggage), I’d be all for getting them off the plane and at least questioning them. However, I don’t count praying loudly in the terminal as a reason to eject someoen from a flight.
It’s sickening how people like yourself continue to label democrats as un-patriotic and happy to let terrorists attack us over and over again. It’d be nice if our airports were a little more secure, but in the almighty need to make a buck, it’s conservatives who are cutting back on protection and safety. Interesting that now we’re officially embroiled in another Vietnam, you use the same name calling and tactics that were used by so-called patriots on people who were against that war: and look ended up being right in the end.
And there we have it; when a desperate liberal can’t use racism, can’t use cultural bias, and has his inane argument that the imams were only joking blown to bits, he tries to claim that the sources that discredit him aren’t accurate — and without citing his own.
Of course, what he forgets is that the last time he tried to quote a “fact” about the seating capacity of an Airbus A320, it was proven to be patently false, demonstrating that his interpretation of events is at the least ill-informed and, quite possibly, deliberately dishonest.
But we should all recognize this pattern by now of a liberal who’s cornered trying to claim that the sources that prove him wrong are “biased”, yet refusing to cite any of his own.
One wonders if Raj has returned under a different name.
“al-Qaeda has realized the usefulness of Democrats and leftists refusing to profile, refusing to allow anyone else to profile, and loudly screaming about how people who raise questions about the suspicious behavior of others are ‘racists’ and ‘not culturally sensitive’ — all out of contempt and hatred for Bush, Republicans, and conservatives, and because doing so would anger their special-rights minority bases.”
I suspect that the Dallas guy has solid knowledge of a-Q’s realizations either because: 1.) he is bin Laden, or 2.) he is Jack Bauer. His further flights of fancy will help us determine which is the case.
In other news, some other “potential terrorist” just made millions on the false charges. (Really, what is a ‘potential terrorist’ and how do we know one when we see one? Note: if he is Jack Bauer, we will soon have an answer to this troubling issue.)
#3. Yeah, kill them all!!! Each and every one of them!! We can’t rest until we drink the blood of every Islamist man, woman and child!!
#22. As someone that attends weekday and Sunday liturgy, is rather familiar with the Liturgy of the Hours, and holds an MA in theology, your charge that I am an anti-religious bigot humors me.
Let the War on the War on Christmas Begin!!
sean, in failing to actually read the thread he elects to mock, has answered the questions posed within nicely, has ne hot?
I might also note that sean has inadvertantly proven the hypothesis posited – much to the chagrin of all those who have heretofore demonstrated a willingness to forego emotion in favor of reason.
sean, on behalf of all those on either side wishing for honest debate, I cordially invite you to go sniff a bus seat. Might be more productive, no?
As someone that attends weekday and Sunday liturgy, is rather familiar with the Liturgy of the Hours, and holds an MA in theology, your charge that I am an anti-religious bigot humors me.
As the old saying goes, sean, Satan could pass any exam on the Bible and the whole of Christian theology with a perfect score.
It doesn’t mean that he believes or practices a word of it; indeed, as events have shown, he’s completely and totally against it and will do anything in his power to sabotage it.
Granted, you’re a rank and fumbling amateur compared to Satan, but the basic principles are quite the same.
sean-of-the-lower-case, if your claims are true in #66, I applaud you but it’s clear to me that when engaged in all the religious activity you note, you fail to take to heart the lessons, the meanings or the message presented to you in Scripture. You need to stop thinking that just attending those liturgies somehow make you religious… no more than the supposed MA in Theology. The Divine Office isn’t something one who is truly religious would say they are “rather familiar” (your words) with… you’re supposed to pray it, sean. In earnest. With a humble heart. Like we do in our home.
You wrote, in a most disprespectful and sneering tone “Okay, I get the REAL point of this post and the comments. No one–absolutely no one–should pray to Allah. One should only pray to the Baby Jesus, His Father, or the Heavenly Bird.”
The last descriptive line about the Holy Trinity, referring to the Holy Ghost as the Heavenly Bird is particularly offensive to most devout Catholics and Orthodox faiths. But hey, I think I pegged you correctly as trying to be a religious bigot. you know, if it quacks like a duck… sure sounds like you were trying to out-bigot GP’s resident religious bigot, Patrick Gryph.
And for the supposed religious character inside you… an informative point: when one prays to Allah, Yahweh, or the Christian God, they are praying to the same God, sean. Go back and get your money refunded for all the tuition paid for the “Theology” degree. You got screwed on that deal.
[Comment deleted.]
This is a clear case of racial profiling. And pundits like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are both reveling in it.
Racial profiling is just a more dignified name for institutional racism. You can continue to justify it and deny it but it doesn’t change this as an obvious fact. Change the imams to a group of white, Methodist ministers coming from a theological seminar with the exact same circumstances and you can easily image a very different set of perceptions by their fellow passengers. It’s doubtful they would have batted an eye much less even thought enough about it to notify the airline and the authorities.
Also, if you read my coments rather than reading in to my comments you’l note that I say it’s likely the imams were testing the boundaries of this profiling. However, and that’s a huge however, I do not know as does anyone else on here what exactly their motivations were. As well, the circumstantial inferences drawn from their behavior neither confirms or denies their intentions.
As to the Airbus seating number, I relied on the seating chart from a popular travel site to see a general layout for the 320 which indicated 16 first class seats and 120 coach class. I attempted to find the information from the US Airways site but couldn’t pin down that information. However, it doesn’t change my conclusion. Where and how they sat is still not well documented in the public record and to assert they sat in a classic 9/11 formation is presumptuous.
Please feel free to do a search in Google or Yahoo news of mainstream publications to duplicate the unsourced reports currently circulating on the conservative blogs and pundits newspapers. I’d be interested to see what you find as it was where I went for all my information. I’m up for the challenge if you’d like to prove me wrong with actual facts instead of trumped up rhetoric.
NDT – you missed my point.
It’s unfortunate that we must look suspiciously at our Muslim neighbors. For though not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists (that want to attack us) are Muslims. However, for regular, law abiding Muslim Americans, that has to be difficult on an emotional level. Yet, that’s the way it has to be.
I have no problem with profiling on airplane flights and never have.
JAQ, it is possible that racial profiling contributed to those individuals being taken off the flight. But the fact remains if their behavior was done by six white individuals, they should have been removed from the flight as well. At the very least, I would certainly want those individuals not on any flight that I’m on. Further, if the imams deliberately tried to test the “boundaries of this profiling,” then that’s more the reason to get them off the flight. Most civilized people I know who go to the airports know how to conduct themselves, and not try to attract any attention that would make other flyers and airport personnel suspicious. The imams apparently chose not too, and paid for it.
Change the imams to a group of white, Methodist ministers coming from a theological seminar with the exact same circumstances and you can easily image a very different set of perceptions by their fellow passengers.
Yes, that’s because Methodist ministers have never hijacked jets for ransom or flown them into buildings. Can you think of even one instance of terrorism involving civil aviation that was committed by an individual or group other than Islamic terrorists?
I can’t.
That’s why profiling in this situation, though unfortunate, is applicable until circumstances warrant a change.
You made the accusations, Just A Question; you provide the evidence.
Show us the travel site that you allege provided you a seating map of an Airbus A320 with the numbers you provided. Cite the stories that you are using to buttress your claims.
And this makes your actions even more laughable:
I’m up for the challenge if you’d like to prove me wrong with actual facts instead of trumped up rhetoric.
In my posts and in Calarato’s posts, we have taken pains to link to and show exactly from where our information is coming.
You have yet to post a single link or referenceable source, yet you haughtily insist you have the “facts”, and claim that all our sources are somehow lying and that you’re right. Even when confronted with obvious proof that you’re wrong, aka the USAir website showing the seating capacity of an A320, you refuse to admit that you were wrong and instead blame a “travel site”, which you won’t name, for allegedly “misleading” you.
Finally, your latest attempt to argue “institutional racism” by claiming a “group of white Methodist ministers wouldn’t have been stopped” is a foolish attempt to use a hypothetical to disprove an actual — just as the example I gave before of a black female who ran red lights and went 40 mph over the speed limit claiming that a white person wouldn’t have been stopped. There have been more than enough white people taken off planes for acting strangely and threateningly to disprove that, and as a white male who himself has been subjected to VERY heightened security scrutiny when traveling on one-way tickets and with no checked bags, I can tell you that race is not an automatic card into or out of the system.
Again assuming, of course, that Muslims are a race, which as Calarato has pointed out above, is incorrect.
It’s sickening how people like yourself continue to label democrats as un-patriotic and happy to let terrorists attack us over and over again.
That is because, Kevin, you and your fellow Democrats tend to fall into one of two categories.
1. Democrats like JustAQuestion who are convinced that nothing suspicious happened, that everyone else is lying, and that the men are not at fault, they were only “profiled” unjustly
2. Democrats like you, Chase, and Gryph who admit that what they were doing was suspicious, but complain that they were only watched because of their religion and that “Christians do it too”.
The first group will do nothing about Islamic terrorists because they refuse to acknowledge suspicious behavior. The second will do nothing about Islamic terrorists because you’re too obsessed with bashing other religions and religious people.
The first group is unpatriotic because they genuinely believe that the United States is “institutionally racist” and always wrong; the second, because they put bashing religion, and especially Christianity, ahead of anything else, including national security.
In short, if you could stop saying the equivalent of, “yes, Islamic terrorism is bad and we should be watchful, but the danger of Christians possibly building concentration camps for gays is just as important”, THEN you might get somewhere in losing the “unpatriotic” tag. But as long as you continue to make it obvious that you’ll only deal with actual Islamist crimes when you can equally bash Christians for what you claim they’re thinking, I stick by that assertion.
Michigan-Matt:
NDT:
Caralato:
Not everyone feels the need to prostitute the name of Jesus Christ in order to further the aims of political bigotry as Michigan-Matt and NDT do.
Some people in fact think that the mixture of politics and religion is inherntly prone to sin.
But really, back to NDT’s comments. Great. Now everyone who doesn’t suck Bush dick is apparently possesed by Satan. Whatever psychodelic drugs NDT is taking, they have given him a chemical lobotomy.
Gryph manages to completely, radically, 100% miss the point… as usual.
***sean*** professed / promoted his religion here, Gryph. Kindly re-read #68.
And my personal answer to that was, in essence, what I always give when someone tries to invoke religious credentials on their own behalf: Fine, it’s OK by me, but let’s also see you living up to it some.
I would put it this way, Gryph; if my comments were really that bad, you wouldn’t have such a blinding need to embellish them.
Granted, it is amusing to see what interpretations you create; however, you need not worry, they’ll stand quite nicely on their own.
From Mish-Mash:
“….. you’re supposed to pray it, sean. In earnest. With a humble heart. Like we do in our home.”
Does anyone else see the irony of this remark? LMAO
monty
This really starts to go beyond the concept of freaky.
monty
monty, did you have a point to make, or did you just post to be an asshole?
Just curious, you know.
LOL.
An asshole comes in handy. But not a hasbeenwriter. 🙂
We leave that up to you. 🙂
monty
“Hasbeenwriter?”
And what made you assume I write anything, Nostradamus?
Hell, if you wanna pick a fight, let’s go, sweetie!
LMAO,
Who picked the fight, hazbin?
monty 🙂
Again with the writer thing!
You know something about me I don’t?
Maybe.
You do have a sense of humor, though. That’s half the battle.
Cheers!
monty
North Dallas Thirty, you continue to misrepresent my position.
Yes, I said they were being watched because of their religion.
Do I have a problem with Muslims being profiled on civil aviation flights?
No.
Am I sympathetic of law abiding Muslim Americans who have to deal with being watched under the assumption that they are a terrorist?
Yes.
All things considered, is profiling on civil aviation flights still necessary?
Yes.
That’s my position on this issue. Earlier, I was simply expressing my disappointment in its unfortunate necessity.
NDT – You were probably thrown off because in one of my responses, I quoted somebody else. I was responding to the bit about the Methodist ministers. I did not write that.
#71-73. Seriously, who the hell do you think you people are? Like the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, or Bill Frist making diagnoses from a video, you think you can make these judgments about the authenticity, depth, and seriousness of my faith? Who. Do. You. Think. You. Are? The Baby Jesus Himself?
I forgot to mention my perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience as well. Continue to make your judgments from afar…from as far away from me as you were from the airplane where the imams were praying to the Jewish and Christian God…lol.
And by the way, belittling religion is an old practice and one that Jesus himself perfected. Who, after all, did Jesus rail on and on about? Who were the only people that Jesus got pissed off about? Religious people who were more into the laws and codes of religion (for example, being a stickler about things like: “you have to pray it,” not be familiar with it–as if I would be famiiar with it from reading a wikipedia article or something!) and those who dared to judge.
Thanks for showing me the quality of your religion. I’ve learned quite a bit.
Berating and misconstruing my commentary in an attempt to skew the conversation doesn’t negate any of the reality of the situation. You’ve not sourced any of your information while I’ve provided an open invitation for you to show me where mainstream publications, not conservatively biased blogs and pundits, have provided details about the incident that mirror your postings. You’ve not done that yet, nor can you.
As for the Airbus 320 seat number issue, check out http://www.seatguru.com and tell me how many seats you see on that particular model.
You’re so desperate to win, to prove that Right is right here, that you’ve lost all sense of the principles at stake and the freedom that allows you your opinions in the first place. I frankly pity you and appreciate the better sense of Americans who concurred to change the agenda with the recent national and state level elections.
In the last comment from the Dallas guy, he said that his comments stand quite nicely on their own. I was just wondering how long they run when they stand together on their own. (Doesn’t this guy have his own blog?) I’m presently collecting text and running it through a program to get a list of the same stock phrases he uses over and over again. “You see, [name], that is because you and the America hating Democrat Party”…blah, blah, blah. Then there is the laying down of categories: “they fall into one of two categories” (and we quickly learn that both categories are BAD and SCARY). And, always, there is the divining of motivations and intentions for all sorts of groups of people by virtue of one’s membership in that particular group–so much for treating individuals as individuals. The performative contradiction here is a source of unending laughter in this household. But, on to the pearls of wisdom, collected together, standing quite nicely and sure to please any size queen with its length:
I actually like Eric’s logic. Basically, anytime someone expressed their religion in public and I feel threatened, I should feel free to expect some punitive action against them.
The difference is, JAQ, that most people will see the difference between radical Islamists exercising their religion by hijacking a plane with the intent of killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, versus a schoolchild praying in public or the President expressing his religious beliefs.
Most rational people would find Eric’s actions justified.
Most rational people find yours to be antireligious bigotry.
When, as a society, we accept to react in fear from a group of people we have no proof of have any intention of harm, we’ve now become the prosecutors, not the prosecuted.
Only problem is, we have a lot of evidence.
The men were acting suspiciously in the terminal.
They rearranged themselves in a fashion that has been identified to be consistent with terrorist intent and activity.
This, furthermore, was not just verified by passengers who you allege are racist, but by the gate agent, flight attendants, and a Federal air marshal — all of whom have received extensive and specialized training to identify such threats.
And finally, the hijackers on 9/11 made it through security just fine as well, thank you; no one really thought at that point that boxcutters constituted weapons.
“Racism” isn’t a concern for you, JAQ; it’s a meaningless perjorative that you use to manipulate people, just as a spoiled-brat child screams, “You don’t love me!” to force an indulgent parent. Al-Qaeda is not stupid; they have realized that people like you have demonstrated the ability to cow the American people into doing things that are patently stupid lest they be called “racist”.
My answer: Screw you.
I’d rather be called “racist” for seeing, recognizing, and acting on information than have thousands of people burned alive and crushed in the rubble of another skyscraper.
When you demonstrate that you can intelligently assess or designate threats, then you can call things racist. But the simple fact of the matter is that gay leftists like you are claiming that Christians and Republicans are building concentration camps for gays in the Pacific Northwest but patently denying the clear and obvious evidence of Islamic terrorism.
Where does this stuff come from? It is hilarious! You should work for Colbert.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you aren’t aware of this statement from gay leftist Mike Rogers, sean:
Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to “internment camps” that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. “I know what happened to gay Jews who didn’t get out fast enough last time,” Rogers said.
In short, it comes from a cited, referenceable, gay leftist source — and from a gay leftist who is supported by numerous other liberal, leftist, and Democratic gays, as well as being paid by the Democratic Party and being a regular guest on leftist talk radio.
And you wonder why gay leftists lack credibility.
What seems obvious here is that liberals and leftists, when called out on their attempts to use racism as a perjorative, have now switched to alleging cultural or religious bias in the same fashion.
Unfortunately, while they were reacting in their typical knee-jerk ideological fashion, attempting to smear those who reacted to this threat by claiming they overreacted to “praying”, perhaps what the gate agents knew needs to be made known:
Witnesses said the men prayed in the terminal and made critical comments about the Iraq war, according to the police report, and a US Airways manager said three of the men had only one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
An airport police officer and a federal air marshal agreed that the combination of circumstances was suspicious, and eventually asked the men to leave the airplane, the police report said.
Plus, as Calarato pointed out above, not only did the men who requested seatbelt extensions visibly not need them, they actually set them on the floor instead of using them. MORE suspicious behavior.
And then we get the pseudo-intellectuals like JAQ trying to cast doubt on the airline:
That plus the fact that the reports also say 141 passengers recreened and reboarded a flight that in poking around should have been an Airbus320 with only 136 seats seems odd.
For those of you who wish to be informed, a cursory check of the US Airways website reveals that, indeed, an Airbus A320 has, in their configuration, between 142 and 150 seats.
Again, note how the liberals scream “racism”, then “cultural bias”, all the while doing their best to point fingers at conservatives and away from the growing mountain of evidence provided by, not just jumpy passengers, but professionals who have been trained to anticipate and recognize potential terrorist activity AND have access to information, such as ticket purchase and baggage, that further enhances identification and localization of threats. They smear these hardworking professionals as making decisions based on “fear”, not on “critical thinking” — which they define as making aspersions about how “it couldn’t be possible to have 141 people on a 136-seat aircraft” without checking just how many seats said aircraft have.
And for a final piece of spite:
If your cause is to increase awareness about the threat of terrorism, it is ill-served by the stupid rhetorical parlor tricks you enjoy playing.
And meanwhile, Gryph, you turn a blind eye to the flat-out fibs and smears that your ideological similars are using to explain why these people should NOT have been stopped.
I’ll take Matt’s “rhetoric” any day over the attempts by your fellow leftists and Democrats to smear, sabotage, and otherwise block the tools that not only WILL protect our flying public, but in several cases, like this one, already HAVE.
The only people that take Mike Rogers completely seriously and literally seem to be the people that hang out here who are obsessed with the guy.
Or the people who post to his site, or to the sites that link to him where you post, like Pam’s House Blend, JoeMyGod, and Americablog, or the radio outlets like Air America that give him airtime, or……
Funny how you so obviously hang on the words of someone who you don’t take seriously or literally, or how you raise no fuss about someone who makes irrational statements like his being put forward to represent the “gay community”, or….
Actually I think it quite likely that the Imams staged the event as a stunt to wail on their breasts in the media about U.S. anti-Muslim bias. If they were terrorists, they were extremely stupid ones. As has been pointed out many times, real terrorists would be far more likely to do everything not to draw attention to themselves.
In an environment where people would actually do something about terrorism, yes.
But as we see here, there are leftist liberals like jimmy, Kevin, Just A Question, and others who, had they been in charge, would not have lifted a finger or batted an eye — and would in fact have prevented anything from being done by their subordinates, calling such actions “racist” and “culturally insensitive”.
And that, in my opinion, is why they picked Minneapolis — a midsized airport with less than state-of-the-art equipment and surveillance, true, but more importantly, a solidly-blue city in a blue state that just elected a Muslim to high office and has a history of kowtowing to minorities who are obviously misbehaving, such as turning a blind eye to the sexual harassment antics of their lesbian fire chief, for years. It’s the same reason illegal immigrants and drug addicts flock to San Francisco; what better place than a city that openly proclaims it will not enforce Federal immigration or drug laws?
al-Qaeda has realized the usefulness of Democrats and leftists refusing to profile, refusing to allow anyone else to profile, and loudly screaming about how people who raise questions about the suspicious behavior of others are “racists” and “not culturally sensitive” — all out of contempt and hatred for Bush, Republicans, and conservatives, and because doing so would anger their special-rights minority bases.
The more I read, the more it seems likely that the imams decided to have little fun and stir up the conservative hornet’s nest. If their goal was to prove profiling is alive and well, despite any real indications of their potential threats as terrorists, they’ve succeeded brilliantly and conservatives have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
That is quite probably the most desperate and contradictory justification I have yet read.
You claim that these people were trying to prove that they’d be “profiled” — by doing numerous things that anyone with half a brain, and especially airport and airline personnel trained to do so, would recognize as indicative of terrorist activity.
It’s sort of like a black person who wants to prove that the police discriminate on the basis of race — so she goes out and runs red lights at 40 mph over the speed limit, then, when she’s stopped, claims she was “profiled” because of her race.
And I really loved this grasping attempt at rebuttal:
And finally, proving that the Airbus is larger than I was able to research only means that there were some extra seats floating around and should have provided some flexibility in seating. Perhaps though Muslims just aren’t allowed that flexibility like the rest of us.
Uh huh. And that’s why, when I flew home from Chicago last week, every single group that was asking for reseating on the (full) flight was asking to sit TOGETHER, not as far as they could possibly get from each other and in a fashion which miraculously put them in excellent position to control both ends of the cabins.
Furthermore, two of them moved themselves from coach to first class. When questioned, they claimed they had gotten upgrades, even though their boarding passes didn’t show it AND the gate agent specifically stated that they had been told that no such seats were available.
Or this was even better:
I see that only one of the men requested an extension, perhaps for himself and his companion.
Yes, because, as we all know, the Muslim religion requires the faithful to be belted in using only one seatbelt. Furthermore, the men didn’t even attach them, but instead stuck them on the floor. Why on earth would you request a seatbelt extension that you ostensibly needed — and then not use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
But this…THIS sums it all up.
The unfortunate part is the more times people cry wolf without clear, rational thought, the harder it become to truly root out potential terrorists.
Bluntly put, you are claiming that these men set out to be deliberately provocative — but then claiming it was neither “clear” or “rational” on the part of the trained people who reacted to react accordingly.
Furthermore, what Calarato pointed out is spot-on — if it was a deliberate provocation on their part, they belong in jail, just as someone who tries to claim that their bomb threat was just to check how people reacted.
Now, I realize that, as a good Democrat, you must automatically assume racism and cultural bias when Muslims or any other minority are held accountable for their behavior; it’s particularly amusing to watch Chase, for example, apologize and rationalize for why he, a good Democrat, would have gotten off that flight and hoped that his doing so wouldn’t offend the imams, because obviously any “good terrorist” wouldn’t broadcast their intentions, but he just wanted to be safe…..
But the rest of us see matters quite differently — and have no intention of allowing paralysis by political correctness to kill thousands more people.
And there we have it; when a desperate liberal can’t use racism, can’t use cultural bias, and has his inane argument that the imams were only joking blown to bits, he tries to claim that the sources that discredit him aren’t accurate — and without citing his own.
Of course, what he forgets is that the last time he tried to quote a “fact” about the seating capacity of an Airbus A320, it was proven to be patently false, demonstrating that his interpretation of events is at the least ill-informed and, quite possibly, deliberately dishonest.
But we should all recognize this pattern by now of a liberal who’s cornered trying to claim that the sources that prove him wrong are “biased”, yet refusing to cite any of his own.
One wonders if Raj has returned under a different name.
You made the accusations, Just A Question; you provide the evidence.
Show us the travel site that you allege provided you a seating map of an Airbus A320 with the numbers you provided. Cite the stories that you are using to buttress your claims.
And this makes your actions even more laughable:
I’m up for the challenge if you’d like to prove me wrong with actual facts instead of trumped up rhetoric.
In my posts and in Calarato’s posts, we have taken pains to link to and show exactly from where our information is coming.
You have yet to post a single link or referenceable source, yet you haughtily insist you have the “facts”, and claim that all our sources are somehow lying and that you’re right. Even when confronted with obvious proof that you’re wrong, aka the USAir website showing the seating capacity of an A320, you refuse to admit that you were wrong and instead blame a “travel site”, which you won’t name, for allegedly “misleading” you.
Finally, your latest attempt to argue “institutional racism” by claiming a “group of white Methodist ministers wouldn’t have been stopped” is a foolish attempt to use a hypothetical to disprove an actual — just as the example I gave before of a black female who ran red lights and went 40 mph over the speed limit claiming that a white person wouldn’t have been stopped. There have been more than enough white people taken off planes for acting strangely and threateningly to disprove that, and as a white male who himself has been subjected to VERY heightened security scrutiny when traveling on one-way tickets and with no checked bags, I can tell you that race is not an automatic card into or out of the system.
Again assuming, of course, that Muslims are a race, which as Calarato has pointed out above, is incorrect.
As someone that attends weekday and Sunday liturgy, is rather familiar with the Liturgy of the Hours, and holds an MA in theology, your charge that I am an anti-religious bigot humors me.
As the old saying goes, sean, Satan could pass any exam on the Bible and the whole of Christian theology with a perfect score.
It doesn’t mean that he believes or practices a word of it; indeed, as events have shown, he’s completely and totally against it and will do anything in his power to sabotage it.
Granted, you’re a rank and fumbling amateur compared to Satan, but the basic principles are quite the same.
It’s sickening how people like yourself continue to label democrats as un-patriotic and happy to let terrorists attack us over and over again.
That is because, Kevin, you and your fellow Democrats tend to fall into one of two categories.
1. Democrats like JustAQuestion who are convinced that nothing suspicious happened, that everyone else is lying, and that the men are not at fault, they were only “profiled” unjustly
2. Democrats like you, Chase, and Gryph who admit that what they were doing was suspicious, but complain that they were only watched because of their religion and that “Christians do it too”.
The first group will do nothing about Islamic terrorists because they refuse to acknowledge suspicious behavior. The second will do nothing about Islamic terrorists because you’re too obsessed with bashing other religions and religious people.
The first group is unpatriotic because they genuinely believe that the United States is “institutionally racist” and always wrong; the second, because they put bashing religion, and especially Christianity, ahead of anything else, including national security.
In short, if you could stop saying the equivalent of, “yes, Islamic terrorism is bad and we should be watchful, but the danger of Christians possibly building concentration camps for gays is just as important”, THEN you might get somewhere in losing the “unpatriotic” tag. But as long as you continue to make it obvious that you’ll only deal with actual Islamist crimes when you can equally bash Christians for what you claim they’re thinking, I stick by that assertion.
I would put it this way, Gryph; if my comments were really that bad, you wouldn’t have such a blinding need to embellish them.
Granted, it is amusing to see what interpretations you create; however, you need not worry, they’ll stand quite nicely on their own.
P.S. I think Betty Bowers would have a bone to pick with all of you being the best Christian.
Like the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, or Bill Frist making diagnoses from a video, you think you can make these judgments about the authenticity, depth, and seriousness of my faith?
Based on James 2:14 – 26, yup. And, since you seem to be of the Catholic persuasion, a quick rereading of the Canons Concerning Justification, Session VI of the Council of Trent, should be more than sufficient to remind you that external works are a more than sufficient means of judging one’s inward faith, and indeed, to say otherwise is anathema.
Who. Do. You. Think. You. Are? The Baby Jesus Himself?
No, my dear; you do a fine job of that already, and there’s really only room for one in the manger. Pity you keep crowding out its correct occupant.
I forgot to mention my perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience as well.
How does it go….oh yes.
“God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.”
Luke 18: 9 – 14, if you’re interested in seeing how that comes out. Plus, realize that you’re trying to impress, at least in my case, a Lutheran; I would recommend Luther’s treatise On Monastic Vows, if you want an opinion.
As for the Airbus 320 seat number issue, check out http://www.seatguru.com and tell me how many seats you see on that particular model.
Gladly.
Let me remind you of your original quote first.
That plus the fact that the reports also say 141 passengers recreened and reboarded a flight that in poking around should have been an Airbus320 with only 136 seats seems odd.
Now, if we look at the very site you claim told you that, we see the following: of first class there are 16 seats, and of coach there are 126.
Even your own source proves you incorrect.
You’ve not sourced any of your information while I’ve provided an open invitation for you to show me where mainstream publications, not conservatively biased blogs and pundits, have provided details about the incident that mirror your postings. You’ve not done that yet, nor can you.
Let’s see; in this post, I cited an Associated Press story and the USAir website.
Meanwhile, had you actually looked at Calarato’s citations, which you dismiss as nothing but “conservatively-biased blogs and pundits”, you would have noticed that the Powerline one, for starters, cited, quoted, and linked for their information to two stories by two different media outlets — the Minneapolis Start-Tribune and — drumroll, please — the New York Times.
You’re so desperate to win, to prove that Right is right here, that you’ve lost all sense of the principles at stake and the freedom that allows you your opinions in the first place.
Oh, I have an excellent idea of the principles at stake and the freedom that allows me my opinions.
That’s why both Calarato and I see no reason to look the other way when people like these Islamic terrorists attempt to abuse them to our detriment and berate those who do use their brains and observational skills to make decisions to protect others — an opinion which, I think, you’ll find is shared by the vast majority of Americans.
Take a hint from the fact that the more opportunistic of your fellow Democrats, like Chase, are vehemently backpedaling from your positions — not necessarily because they condemn them, mind you, but because they realize that airing this portion of Democratic Party dogma — that minorities are always right and that anyone who finds activities by a minority person to be wrong or suspicious is racist — is the political equivalent of chugging hemlock.
sean, if you’re going to attempt to claim religious faith as your shield (see your own #68), then be prepared to have people consider how much love and charity your blog-actions manifest (or lack).
You know – exactly the same as we would all be doing for Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, if they showed up here. It goes with the territory. (of attempting to claim religiousness, or religion as one’s shield)
sean at #95,
While I may find myself in complete disagreement with you on most issues, I am interested in what you have to say.
Ergo, your post at #95 makes no sense whatsoever when the reader isn’t able to distinguish between what you’re quoting and what you’re trying to say! 🙂
Care to clarify?
Eric in Hollywood
#98 – NDT, awesome comeback!
And we do seem to see a lot on this blog, of lefty commentors:
(1) failing to provide cites (often)
(2) failing to actually READ the content of their own cites, when they do
(3) failing to read the cites of others (and click 1 link deeper where necessary) before opening their mouths to criticize.
#101. Please. The dude just links to his own decrepit blog in the hopes that people will actually read it. Do the people that agree with and praise this guy on here even read his blog?
#97. Telling Catholics about the Council of Trent? It took place from 1545-1563. There have been a few more meetings since. “since you seem to be of the Catholic persuasion”… Fascinating. Keep talking. It would be fascinating to see what you think of this “persuasion”. Especially since it now becomes clear that you have a very narrow view of what counts as “Christian,” with some having certain “persuasions” that don’t measure up to your formulation.
#99. “Blog-actions”? Are these like “discursive acts” or “speech acts”? You know, those things that are relied upon in critical legal theory? By liberals, leftists, people of the Black persuasion, people of the gay persuasion, and people of the Jewish persuasion when they speak about hate speech and crimes? What, exactly, is a “blog-action”? Is it related to a bat in a borg on a moon?
What’s the phrase I’m looking for? Something like “Jane, you ignorant , (and in this case) deceptive slut!”
If you bothered to read your “citations,” you’d realize that not one of them refutes my argument nor do they confirm any of your “facts” about the incident, which I’m guessing were picked up from unsourced, poltical pundit sites. You do realize what a citation is, no?
And re seatguru.com, that is my own fault for not having better math skills. However, it still wouldn’t explain 147 passengers on a 142 seat plane.
Let me explain why profiling in this situation is not racist. There is a stark difference between profiling Muslims for civil aviation terrorism and profiling in general.
Profiling all black people for any random crime is wrong. Why? Because white people and others commit crimes too.
But when was the last time anyone besides an Islamic terrorist used civil aviation airplanes to commit terrorism? It is exclusively those of the Islamic faith that are committing such acts.
That’s the difference. In this situation, one group is exclusively committing all the crime. In no other instance of law enforcement can you say that.
Please. The dude just links to his own decrepit blog in the hopes that people will actually read it.
LOL…..note that, in the post you are referencing, jimmy, ((#98), not once did I reference my own blog. My own comments which contained links to external sources, yes — plus additional direct links to other sources.
Furthermore, it’s rather ironic, given that you seem to have no trouble quoting my blog when it suits you — although you did descend into a screaming fit when you attempted to use a blog citation of mine to prove that I was “gay bashing” and it blew up in your face.
Fascinating. Keep talking. It would be fascinating to see what you think of this “persuasion”. Especially since it now becomes clear that you have a very narrow view of what counts as “Christian,” with some having certain “persuasions” that don’t measure up to your formulation.
If you wish to state that I am an anti-Catholic bigot, jimmy, come right out and say it. Have the courage to point to my statements that you believe establish that fact and claim directly that I am an anti-Catholic bigot.
Go on. We’re waiting.
sean-of-the-lower-case-clan, as was rightly pointed out… the issue isn’t whether or not you contend to be religious (in fact, Calarato willingly gives you a pass on that question)… or that you tried to wear that fakery on your sleeve as some trump card to be played out when caught making religiously bigoted comments like Gryph… the issue is when you use terms like “Heavenly bird” and argue that you’re “familiar with” the Liturgy of the Hours… it seems, well, shallow and hollow and artificial.
We see it here often… the claim by a commenter that “I’m a registered Republican but I can’t tolerate this President, this Congress, or the GOP anymore –they’re all racists, bigots, homophobes and whores.” Or the grand one: “I’ve never voted Democrat before but this year I’m voting str8 Democrat Party ticket”. LOL.
Rather than launch into a petty and meanspirited defense of your religiousness, maybe you should have taken the more religious path and offered: “Sorry for the offense, thank you for pointing out the errors. I apprecaite it.”
And now, having been correctly instructed on what you should have done, if indeed you aren’t a religious bigot, you can accept this constructive criticism and make amends for your past indiscretions. In Catholic grade school, our boys learn the line “Thank you Sister for correcting me”. All learning starts with a willing, humble heart, sean.
You still aren’t listening to all those lessons and messages in the Scripture you contend to be hearing at daily service. For someone who professes to be celibate, chaste, and made a pledge of poverty… you seem to have a spirit not in keeping with the path you’ve “chosen”.
Just my humble opinion having known many holy people in my short life. Something with you doesn’t click into sync.
And re seatguru.com, that is my own fault for not having better math skills. However, it still wouldn’t explain 147 passengers on a 142 seat plane.
Two words: “standby passengers”.
USAir, like every major US airline, allows passengers who are ticketed on later flights to “stand by” for earlier ones. Furthermore, those familiar with airline travel know that aircrews, i.e. pilots and flight attendants must travel between the cities where they live and the hubs where their carrier’s routes begin, as Phoenix is for USAir/America West — and they travel standby.
Hence, when the six suspicious passengers were removed; great opportunity to clear the standby list and send people to Phoenix.
And this, frankly, made me laugh, especially its last statement:
If you bothered to read your “citations,” you’d realize that not one of them refutes my argument nor do they confirm any of your “facts” about the incident, which I’m guessing were picked up from unsourced, poltical pundit sites. You do realize what a citation is, no?
JustAQuestion, I invite anyone who even thinks you have a shred of credibility in lecturing other people about their citations to read your posts in this comment thread.
Both Calarato and I have repeatedly provided sourceable, referenceable links to mainstream news media, either directly or via other blogs who have done exactly the same, as buttresses for our statements. You claimed that these “right wing blogs” weren’t using “mainstream news sources”; however, as I showed, Powerline, for one, linked directly to both the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and New York Times. Furthermore, in posts such as this, I used the quote directly from the source to make my point.
The only linked and referenceable citation you have offered to prove your argument was a link to Seatguru.com — and it didn’t say what you claimed it did.
The rest you have tried to palm off like this:
Please feel free to do a search in Google or Yahoo news of mainstream publications to duplicate the unsourced reports currently circulating on the conservative blogs and pundits newspapers. I’d be interested to see what you find as it was where I went for all my information.
And in the meantime, you have demanded this:
You’ve not sourced any of your information while I’ve provided an open invitation for you to show me where mainstream publications, not conservatively biased blogs and pundits, have provided details about the incident that mirror your postings.
However, as I’ve already shown, when provided mainstream sources like the New York Times and Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you refuse to acknowledge their existence or what they say.
Meanwhile, your argument has fluctuated from “the imams did nothing wrong” to “the imams were being deliberately provocative” to “trained airline and airport security personnel are racist and anti-Muslim” to “126+16=136, and even if that’s wrong, the airlines are still lying”.
JAQ, give it up. Or better: go and actually READ the cites I gave before opening your mouth to criticize. As NDT mentions, the Powerline guys QUOTED THE NEW YORK TIMES to obtain several key facts.
But, I don’t know why I would waste any breath on you (or indeed I haven’t wasted much, since before #62) since you claim with straight face that this whole thing was an instance of racial profiling, not behavioral! LOL!
Remember folks: (1) THERE IS NO MUSLIM RACE; and (2) the six imams were profiled for intentional BEHAVIOR – such as their loudly, pointedly, weirdly splitting their group to the specific “terrorist attack seats” at far-flung ends of the aircraft.
Racial profiling = bad, and not possible in this situation; BEHAVIORAL profiling = necessary and right. If the 6 are innocent, like genuine ordinary travellers, they should be grateful to think of the air crews’ vigilance and concern for security.
But, we know they aren’t innocent: they knew precisely what to do to unnerve the air crews and disturb their work, and did those things deliberately. JAQ admitted it already, in #53.
If you or I did the same – deliberately disturbing the air crews’ work – we might still be in jail, and rightly so.
NDXXX, why persist? Just A Question is a lot like the drive-by media… it draws up opinions from vacant emotions, shoots from the hip, sees if it sticks, if it does –capitalizes on it, if not –grab another, there’s more where the last one came from…
I still love the shallowness and clear failure on JAQ’s and his sidekicks Gryph and fnln… ala: one of the Imams was blind… oh yeah, blind terrorists put the fear of God in me and they are such a threat.
JAQ, Gryph, monty and fnln are a dime a dozen on the GayLeft. Fast with the lip, short on substance. Kind of like the guys they pick up in the bars at 2 AM on a Saturday… but there’s nothing slim about those pickings.
So despite that citing Powerline and the mainstream publications it cites contain no details of the specific circumstances which you offer as fact, you still maintain that that somehow supports your suppositions? I went and read all of then and it’s simply not there. Someone else is famous for citing publications and reports that simply don’t contain the details one would assume would be there by the context of the writing – none other than Mr. Ann Coulter hierself. Perhaps you’re really her less masculine, more hyperventilated drag persona.
Perhaps you should consider that in your world “lying” means actual consideration of the events in question without presumptively assuming that Muslims are automatically to blame. You still show no attempt to consider how this incident is not one of racism.
Wait, Calarato, am I actually to the right of you on this issue?!
That would be a first.
I don’t care if its racial or behavioral or religious profiling. No Muslim should pass through airport security in the United States without getting extra scrutiny, period.
And while constitutional protections might make it unable to be official policy, I would hope all airport employees are of the same mind. This incident, like others, shows that’s probably true. It’s just common sense.
NDXXX, why persist? Just A Question is a lot like the drive-by media… it draws up opinions from vacant emotions, shoots from the hip, sees if it sticks, if it does –capitalizes on it, if not –grab another, there’s more where the last one came from…
Because, my friend, confronting JAQ is a lot like confronting antigay religious extremists; the usefulness is not in convincing them, but to embarrass and wedge away from them those who might ordinarily support them.
In the case of Democrats, this is extraordinarily easy, mainly because Democrats are used to a base that is either ignorant or ideologically incapable of pointing out their contradictions. For example, our Democrats here rail against “Republican corruption” and demand that those who commit campaign finance fraud resign and permanently remove themselves from public office, but inexplicably make no such demands of their own. As a result, Democratic politicians change positions back and forth like windsurfing Kerrys, because they are convinced it makes no difference to voters.
In this case, as we’ve seen, our board Democrats have done three things as JAQ has been confronted and descended further and further into wild rationalizations in the face of facts — either shut up and kept quiet (Kevin, keogh, Ian), tried to change the subject (jimmy, sean), or loudly come out in favor of what is the popular viewpoint (Chase, Gryph). Two of the three of those are good options from our viewpoint, and the third is so transparently obvious (sean’s attempts to divert the discussion) that it is easily refuted.
In short, none of them want to follow JAQ down; all that varies is what their best tactic for escaping that sinking ship is, whether it’s to slip quietly over the side or put on a sunbonnet and skirt and attempt to get into the lifeboats.
The key to this strategy, as to any good military tactic, is to stay calm and stick to what is important and known. Because both Calarato and I have refused to let up in demonstrating our abundance of sources versus his absence of sources, JAQ has been forced to shift stories of what has happened, acknowledge what he previously denied about Powerline and other blogs citing mainstream news sources, and reach the point of attempting to insult me personally.
Yet the fundamental point is and still remains; he has cited and referenced only one specific source for his argument (seatguru.com) — and even it didn’t say what he claims it said. Therefore, his attempts to claim that everyone else’s sources or interpretations are false is neither backed up by tangible evidence or by his past record of truthfulness in reference.
NDT:
You act like I’m for profiling Muslims in airport security just because it is “popular” here. That’s not true. It’s always been my position. I went to college in NYC between 98-02. I was profiling long before 9/11. I would always look around at the people around me, particularly if I was on a bus going through one of the tunnels. Because it’s well known they want to blow them up.
#105. How does you getting banned from yet another blog = something blowing up in my face? You’re a joke.
jimmy: you think you can make these judgments about the authenticity, depth, and seriousness of my faith?
“of the Dallas persuasion”: Based on James 2:14 – 26, yup. And, since you seem to be of the Catholic persuasion, a quick rereading of the Canons Concerning Justification, Session VI of the Council of Trent, should be more than sufficient to remind you that external works are a more than sufficient means of judging one’s inward faith, and indeed, to say otherwise is anathema.
“of the Dallas persuasion”: “God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.”
Luke 18: 9 – 14, if you’re interested in seeing how that comes out. Plus, realize that you’re trying to impress, at least in my case, a Lutheran; I would recommend Luther’s treatise On Monastic Vows, if you want an opinion. ”
In other words, you say “this is what people of the Catholic ‘persuasion’ believe” and “this is why they are wrong”. But, you already knew that that was what you said.
How’s the counter on your blog today? Or should I ask the folks running Gay Patriot, since you post more here than you do there?
#109. “Kind of like the guys they pick up in the bars at 2 AM on a Saturday…” Wow, the moral police are out in force. Seriously, these insults are quite telling.
How does you getting banned from yet another blog = something blowing up in my face?
Because, jimmy, anyone who read that post realized that what you were claiming was “gay-bashing” wasn’t really gay-bashing at all, and was in fact rather complimentary to most gays.
In other words, you say “this is what people of the Catholic ‘persuasion’ believe” and “this is why they are wrong”.
Actually, if you read On Monastic Vows, jimmy, what you find is not that Luther disparages the reasoning behind vows as such; however, he is merciless on those who use the fact that they have taken such vows to claim that they are “better Christians” than others, or that these vows somehow make them more holy in God’s sight.
On Monastic Vows says basically this: “There’s nothing wrong with choosing to live poor, chaste, and obedient — as long as it is your choice, freely given, and you understand that it neither elevates you above other Christians or ensures your salvation.”
And finally, the fact that I believe something different has no requirement for me to think that someone else is wrong. My point was that sean was trying to impress me with his vows when I myself don’t believe those vows represent anything other than a choice by the individual to live poor, chaste, and obedient.
And, amusingly enough, your attempt to hold sean’s vows up as proof of his indelible character and goodness is astonishingly similar to the rationale used by those Catholic bishops who were loathe to believe that priests under their command were sexually molesting children.
You act like I’m for profiling Muslims in airport security just because it is “popular” here. That’s not true. It’s always been my position.
Chase, I was just thinking today that you really reminded me of someone else in the Democratic Party, but I couldn’t remember exactly who.
Then it hit me.
Senator Joe Biden — or as we like to call him, “Mr. Before and After“.
And believe it or not, that’s not even the best example; after all, the man went from practically flinging open our southern border before to now blaming Mexico and Mexican immigrants for everything from heroin to halitosis.
#111 – #113 – OK, I will own up to it – You may be to the right of me on this one Chase; and that forces me to consider putting you back in the “potentially interesting” category in my mind. 😉
Well, you can say my position has changed, but it hasn’t. I thought it was ridiculous that my grandmother had to take off her shoes on the flight to Miami last year for the Orange Bowl. I mean, really. She is a 90 year old German immigrant. The only thing she is hiding in her shoes are her corn pads! And it’s not 1942.
It was a waste of time, for both us and them.
Additionally, when the NYC MTA began checking bags on the subway, I thought it was stupid to just check 1 out of every 4 people. What if Tariq and Ahmed are numbers 2 and 3 between the 4? They don’t get checked? No. If they are going to inconvenience everyone by checking some bags, at least check every bag brought aboard by a Muslim male.
That’s always been my position. Some random checks are fine, but within the random checks should be specific profiling which targets the group exclusively responsible for civil aviation terrorism: Muslim males.
Or perhaps you are referring to my zeal to win the broader war. That’s just your own preconceived notion that the Democrats don’t want to fight terrorism. Our differences, the differences in our parties, have always been tactical. We all want the same end result.
After all, I don’t like going to church. I know I wouldn’t like going to mosque either.
I really, really disagree with that. People who say things like “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)” and “Cheney is a war criminal!” and “Our troops are killers!” and “If you don’t study hard, you end up serving in Iraq” and “Christianist, Islamist, it’s all the same”, are not people who want the same end result as I. Emphatically not.
(sorry, I should have put “Our troops are torturers!” in that list, for Andrew Sullivan and Gryph)
Wow ND30. You cite like Coulter, defend your culture warrior position like O’Reilly, and spew ridiculous, inciteful rhetoric like Cheney on a hunting trip.
Good ND30, good boy. Now go lie down. That’s a good sycophant. Good boy.
jaq snidely quips…
“Good ND30, good boy. Now go lie down. That’s a good sycophant. Good boy.”
I don’t really know which part of this little bit of snark I find more ludicrous – the patronizing tone or the “sycophant” crack.
The patronizing I really kind of expected from a thoroughly repugnant little shit like JAQ, so no dice there. But the “sycophant” thing is reallt just too much, considering that our resident pantywaist here has elevated the parroting of dhimmi talking points to an art form.
Hey JAQ, you need some new material, sweetie. Now be a good little moonbat and go get your marching orders from KosKo.
Care to try insulting me? By the time I get through with you, you’ll wanna stick an exhaust pipe in your mouth.
Silly moonbat. You don’t bring sarcasm to an intellectual knifefight.
Calarato… That’s all business. It’s politics. You even just participated in it. We couldn’t want the same result because the Democrats are all terrorists and we want them to win, right? That seems to be you’re thinking.
Those sort of subtle jabs may be alright for the campaign trail. But if you really believe that, then you’re just a bitter partisan. For it is patently false.
Eric,
I think all insults you could throw my way would still continue to be eclipsed by the recent elections. People are tired of the smoke screen and mirrors of hypocritical neocons like yourself. Continue to fight for Eisenhower-like future that never really was while the rest of the world deals with the piling of political manure built up from the last decade or so or Republican bullshit. You’ve all had your chance and you all blew it. Don’t expect another opportunity to come along for some time now.
I’d say you’re in stage II of the grieving process – anger. Let me know when you finally get around to stage IV – acceptance.
#124 – Chase, first of all I am a registered Independent at present, and have never been a Republican. (15-year Democrat at one point.) I’m about the ideas not the party.
Second – No, you’re mistaken. Re-read the thoughts I quoted, which are all seriously maintained today by many Democrat leaders such as Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Al Gore, Charles Rangel, John Conyers and worse. Those particular leaders DO NOT want America to flourish and be victorious in the war with Islamo-fascism. (As their supporters have made clear, in comments on this blog, at different times.) I’m sorry, but you are misguided indeed if you can’t discern that.
Now, it is true that if you dig long enough, you can come up with patriotic (dare I say Blue Dog or “conservative”?) Democrat leaders who do want American victory. But they aren’t running the show, tragically.
P.S. What the leaders I cited do want, judging from the effects of their actions and statements, is: for America to be humbled, for Republicans to be punished, for capitalism to be seen as a failure, for America to be thoroughly de-Christianized and “multicultural” (read: Muslim-friendly; it is no accident that newly-elected Keith Ellison is a Democrat), and for ever-increasing socialism to be established (e.g., socialized medicine), until finally, America looks, feels, behaves and stinks like Sweden.
It is technically possible for their vision to be further from the end result I want (e.g., if they wanted America to look like Russia) – but not by all that much.
OK? Have I explained it clearly?
When exactly should USAirways or the passengers have gotten up and started reacting? When box cuters were pulled or matches were lit or hatches opened up? This is typical American second guessing. Until the actual planes are driven into the ground or into skyscrapers we are all suppose to be PC. There’s a certain part of the country who are all talk. And the others take action. I envy and support those who take action.
Gene,
The problem is that you’re expecting people to react from a place of fear. If the weapons you mention were the ones that would be used, we’ve got a lot more to worry about at the security check-in area than people being watchful. That would only prove further that this was a case of profiling. And giving in to the fear of the “what ifs” will almost always ensure you make the wrong decision.
Being aware is a good thing. Being mindful of those around you is a good thing. Being conscientious of anything that could become a problem during a flight is something every passenger should do. But summarily assuming that obviously devout Muslims have nothing but evil intentions in mind when boarding a plane is not the right course of action. The more you push the rubber band of plausibility in the name of security, the more it’s going to rightly snap back in your face.
Who would fight??? Hmmm…What does history tell us…?…Dickie had “better things to do” and Georgie disappears…toughie…Rangel has combat experience, doesn’t he?…maye not so tough after all.
Calarato, that’s just flat wrong. The leaders of the Democratic Party want America to win.
Since FDR, the Democrats have advocated for capitalism with elements of socialism mixed in. What you are describing is not new.
I know Republicans hate social programs like medicare and social security and would love to do away with them. Yet, and much to the GOP’s dismay, those programs are untouchable because they have the popular support of the American people.
Ronald Reagan said the most feared sentence in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” But as we learned from Hurricane Katrina, it can be far worse to need help from the government and find that no one is there at all.
What you are describing, the Democratic political vision in terms of domestic policy, has nothing to do with the war.
Poll after poll for years have shown, when it comes to domestic issues, particularly economic issues, the American people overwhelmingly support the Democratic vision for the country. That has always been our strongest suit. But that alone was not enough for us to win in the current climate. We won in this past election because the public also lost faith in the Republican leadership on what had been their strongest suit: defense and national security.
Wow ND30. You cite like Coulter, defend your culture warrior position like O’Reilly, and spew ridiculous, inciteful rhetoric like Cheney on a hunting trip.
As I said, JAQ, driving you to feeble and spiteful factiousness like this is the entire point.
Chase claims Democrats want to fight terrorism, but hasn’t said word one against your rhetoric, your lack of citations, your obvious misreading of what sources you did cite, and the numerous other pronouncements you have made about how what he wants to do is racist.
Relative to the elections, Rahm Emanuel and the DNC correctly read the temper of the nation and put out candidates that act like Chase — Democrats who at least paid lip service to fighting terrorism.
However, their crucial miscalculation was in believing that the electorate, like their syncophants like Chase, will handle being lied to with such rationalizations. We’ll see what said candidates look like when, in two years, they, like you, are claiming that trained professionals who recognize and act to intercept terrorist activities are “racist”, and that passengers who keep their wits about them and demand that people who are acting strangely be dealt with the same, are stupid and ignorant.
Chase is already demonstrating here that he won’t confront the rhetoric of the Democratic leadership — which is what you represent.
And now to deal with him directly.
I know Republicans hate social programs like medicare and social security and would love to do away with them. Yet, and much to the GOP’s dismay, those programs are untouchable because they have the popular support of the American people.
Of course, Chase; if you tell people you’re going to give them free money, most everyone will support that.
However, what if you phrased those two programs differently?
For Social Security, how about you phrase it this way:
“You will be taxed 6.2% of all of your income for the length of your working life. Assuming that you start work at age 22 and retire at 70 with an average annual salary of $50,000 dollars, that is $148,000 you will pay into the system.
But here’s the fun part. First, since you made too much money, you’re only entitled to a fractional portion of it, since we give proportionately less of it back the higher your income goes, like over, say, $6000 a year. Second, once you’ve run out your entitlement to that fractional portion — not to the whole amount — we’ll then raise taxes on your kids to pay for it. Meanwhile, they’ll also be paying for the people who chose not to work or get an education, but are entitled to proportionately more benefits than you are — and, as a final present, you’ll be paying taxes on your income.
Now, had you been able to invest that money yourself, not only would you be entitled to every dollar you put out — no fractional requirements here — but you would also be able to earn interest on that money, growing it even larger; plus, when you died, you could then will whatever was left over to your children. Plus, you’d be taxed when you took it out, but not when you put it into the account — or you could choose to be taxed when you put it in, but not when you took it out.”
How many people do you think would still sign up?
Or how many people do you think would still sign up for Medicare when you told them that it was a 2.9% tax for the entirety of their working life — but the same rules applied as Social Security AND they couldn’t elect for full care without having to pay extra?
It’s no surprise that you support this, Chase; after all, your major concern, given your inherited wealth, is in which house you wish to spend the next month. But for those of us in the working world who see the government siphon away money from us that we know we will never get back, that is putting a future liability on our children, that we could invest ourselves, and that they are using to buy votes, isn’t going to fly. Rich Democrats like John Kerry who pay only 17% income tax rates while demanding that those of us who pay higher rates — or worse, are hit by the AMT — be forced to absorb even more of the cost of their government vote-buying projects know better.
You claim to be for the underprivileged, Chase; if so, give up one of your own f’ing houses to a poor family rather than trying to force those of us who are paying for our first to finance it for them. It should be no surprise to anyone that studies show that liberals are tightwads compared to conservatives when it comes to charitable giving; conservatives know that giving money directly is far more effective than laundering it through the government, but liberals know that giving money directly requires YOU to pay for it. When conservatives want to give a dollar, they give a dollar; when liberals want to give a dollar, they give 17 cents and use the law to force everyone else to give.
Yawn.
Long doesn’t mean substantive.
Is this my stop yet?
monty
monty: I think NDXXX nailed it once again –he put into concrete terms the “promise” of two big Democrat social welfare programs.
I think YOU need to recall that snarking and sniping from the cheap seats doesn’t indicate intelligence or wit –just that you got in here “free” and reminds us that you’ve laid claim to raj’s seat as GP’s premiere nabob.
As a liberal lefty, I fully support the actions of the airline authorities on this incident. I don’t care what the religion/beliefs/required rituals are, you DON’T pull stunts like they pulled in airports/on planes, post 9/11. You just DON’T. ..And that’s exactly what that was… A stunt. As far as I’m concerned, those imams were blatantly arrogant, with no regard for the security concerns of the other passengers. They’re supposed to be religious?? Please. They got what they deserved. Hopefully, in the future, they’ll have enough common sense not to make a scene when flying places.
NDT:
I wish I was as rich as you seem to think I am! I’m not sure where you got the idea from that I own multiple houses. I don’t even own one yet…
Also, your argument against Social Security and Medicare seems predicated on the idea that Americans are ignorant to how they work.
In your view, I guess the American people couldn’t possibly support the programs unless they were uneducated about them? I think i’ll just call you Gwyneth from now on. 😉
Chase, let’s keep it simple by sticking to one thing at a time – and the Democrat leaders’ reluctance to fight and win the GWOT is most nearly topical, for this thread.
Nancy Pelosi won’t even so much admit that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.
If you confronted her, of course she would CLAIM to want America to win. It would be political suicide for her not to.
But – Who, i.e., which side, does her weird, lunatic denial of reality actually help? Hint: Not ours.
Case closed.
#137 – P.S. For extensive particulars on how al Qaeda is, in fact, our enemy in Iraq and the major fomentor of the Iraqi-on-Iraqi sectarian violence (along with Iran working the “Shiite militia” side of it), and on how we are often beating al Qaeda in Iraq and can continue to do so, just go here and read the back articles: http://www.billroggio.com
And for extensive particulars on how al Qaeda was in Iraq even BEFORE the Coalition invasion in 2003, as Saddam had worked out an accommodation with them in the 1990s and grew his ties with them in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, look into some back articles here: http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/
Calarato,
I disagree with Speaker-elect Pelosi on this issue cause Al Qaeda is fermenting the violence in Iraq. That was their goal and they are succeeding at it. But the Bush Administration is responsible for allowing them to be in such a position. It can’t be the Democrats fault we are losing the war when it’s been the Republicans running the show!
You look at the broader Middle East and it’s a very bleak picture. We are losing on all fronts: in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The President is responsible for that.
Also, your argument against Social Security and Medicare seems predicated on the idea that Americans are ignorant to how they work.
Basically, yes.
But here’s a crucial difference:
In your view, I guess the American people couldn’t possibly support the programs unless they were uneducated about them? I think i’ll just call you Gwyneth from now on.
It’s not that Americans are stupid; it’s just that they haven’t been told the details or encouraged to find out more about them.
Take the bend points I mentioned above. Do you think most Americans know that the rate at which you accrue your Social Security benefit relative to your income peaks at $8k a year and then falls almost two-thirds — and then is cut in half again once you get just a little bit above $45k a year?
Do you think they know that, if they’re a dual-income family, that, thanks to the household payout rules, the amount of money they can receive as a couple is almost always less than the amount they would receive as two single individuals?
And do you think they’re all aware of the fact that Social Security actually taxes people twice — once on their income, second on their benefits?
Nope.
There is a reason that Europe, which is the Democrats’ wet dream in terms of cradle-to-grave social welfare, is trying its darndest to CUT benefits — because they suddenly have realized that, when given the choice between working and saving and not working and saving, people will choose the latter — especially when the net financial impact of doing neither is the same or slightly more than doing both. Leftist union contracts that, as Democrats want, guarantee high salaries and benefits regardless of attendance, quality, or productivity produce low attendance, shitty quality, and bad productivity.
You look at the broader Middle East and it’s a very bleak picture. We are losing on all fronts: in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
Compared to what?
Did you prefer Saddam Hussein?
Did you prefer everyone, including the UN, being blind to Iran’s plans to build nuclear weapons and their carrying it out?
Did you prefer Afghanistan under the Taliban and their sheltering of al-Qaeda?
Did you prefer Lebanon’s government being nothing more than a puppet of Syria?
Notice that, in all these cases, the people who are fighting us are fighting to restore those states of affairs. The insurgents want the Ba’athists back, Iran wants the UN to ignore it, the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies want them back in power, and Hizbollah, aka Syria, wants control of Lebanon’s government.
There is a reason all these people are cheering the ascension of the Democrats; they know damn well that, if Dems are in power, the pressure is off them completely. Dems will let Syria dominate Lebanon, they will stop pushing the UN to deal with Iran, and they will summarily “redeploy” and seal US troops completely out of range of doing anything from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Right, NDT.
The situation in the broader Middle East is vastly better than it was 5.3 years ago, and vastly better than it would have been today if we had not launched 2 wars, for these reasons:
(1) 25 million people in Afghanistan have a hope of freedom – even if al Qaeda are now trying to crush it from bases in Pakistan.
(2) 25 million people in Iraq have a hope of freedom – even if al Qaeda and Iran are now trying to crush it by fomenting sectarian violence.
(3) Millions in Lebanan have a hope of freedom – even if Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are now trying to crush it.
(4) Thousands of al Qaeda terrorists captured or killed, and more each week.
(5) End of the Libyan nuclear program.
(6) End of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.
The problems we continue to see are problems of progress and of “coming out of denial”. When you set out to clean the house, or the turkey pan, at first (and for a long time) it is all far dirtier. The important thing is that you (a) set out, and then (b) finish the job or follow through.
But because the likes of Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Kerry and others don’t want to see it that way, and do want to re-play Vietnam and see America humbled (for psychological and political reasons of their own), point (b) is now in doubt.
In structure and logic, the arguments that they’ve offered for us to abandon the Iraqi people, hate Bush, etc. are identical to arguments that Axis propagandists offered to bring about American defeat and Roosevelt-hate in WW2.
American prospects were terribly bleak right up to about, oh, 6 August 1945. As late as 5 August, it still looked as though America would lose hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives trying to subdue the Japanese home islands. Even after the war concluded a few days later, with shocking suddenness (thanks to the Hiroshima atomic bomb), literally millions of American servicemen had to be deployed in Japan and in Germany – and to actively fight local terrorists – for seven more years.
There was a time when Democrat leaders were indeed patriotic and in favor of American victory and success. Think Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy. To our great detriment: times have changed.
Chase: the Democrats have been knocking our troops, spreading confusion and lies about our purpose, and (in some cases) spreading quite FALSE tales of atrocity for partisan gain, from the beginning of 2003. When they should have been supporting the President and presenting a consistent, united purpose – as Republicans did for Roosevelt in WW2.
It is indeed the Democrats’ fault that terrorists rejoice over their victory and that we have APPEARED to be in bad shape – and that, because Democrat policies of confusion and defeat are now about to get some degree of implementation, we may soon really be in bad shape.
(i.e., that terrorists rejoice over the Democrats’ election victory)
If all of what you guys say is true, what does that say about America handing control of power to the Democrats? By your judgment, Americans faced a clear choice in the past election and yet, didn’t choose your side.
Most of what you’ve both written was said often and repeatedly by Republican candidates during the campaign. It’s not like the American people didn’t hear it. They just weren’t buying it.
I don’t buy it either. It’s a bunch of BS.
Most of what you’ve both written was said often and repeatedly by Republican candidates during the campaign. It’s not like the American people didn’t hear it. They just weren’t buying it.
I don’t buy it either. It’s a bunch of BS.
Actually, Chase, it wasn’t said nearly enough.
As I have said, the RNC missed out on a golden opportunity to do a compare and contrast.
Imagine the advertisement.
It starts with a split-screen shot……the photos taken by US troops abusing detainees at Abu Ghirab on the left, a video of Teddy Kennedy ranting about how evil it was on the right.
Screen changes…..now it’s a video of Saddam’s torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghirab on the right, and Teddy Kennedy arguing about how it was unnecessary to do anything about Iraq on the right.
How do you think the American public would have taken to this, when the outrage of the Democrats over our troops’ behavior was so palpable and their blindness to Saddam’s far worse torture so obvious?
Have you seen any exposes on Saddam’s prisons and practices anywhere near the scale of the ones you’ve seen on Abu Ghirab, Chase?
No you haven’t, and you won’t; the same media sources that admitted they covered up for Saddam Hussein and the same Scott Ritters who refused to talk about Saddam’s abuses in the name of “waging peace” haven’t changed their tune.
In fact, they and the Democratic Party are absolutely terrified of any such thing that would talk about what Dems turned a blind eye to — as we saw in the Democrats’ threat to strip the broadcast licenses from stations that aired material critical towards the Clinton administration.
Except, that ad would have highlighted one of the main problems the American people have with the war: the shifting rational.
We invaded Iraq because _______. No, we actually invaded for _______. And again, it’s changed to _______.
Fill in the blanks.
That’s why you aren’t coming up with the ads for the RNC.
Chase, it isn’t or wasn’t about shifting rational for the invasion of Iraq… it’s about the willingness of those in power to tolerate partisan criticism for the sake of political gain and seeing that as normal for DC… it’s about not calling unpatriotic sentiments exactly that… it’s about not having “sold” the American people on the broader WOT and Iraq –and allowing lies to go unanswered without an effective response.
Just like Kerry learned firsthand about his newly crafted military patriotism being questioned by his fellow SwiftBoat Veterans, Bush and surrogates should have been hammering the opposition hard –relentlessly. Like SlickWilly would have done if he had been Prez another 8 years (shudder). No quarter given. No prisoners accepted. Total vanquishment and victory and no second option. Savage. Civil men have never occupied the corridors of power.
Finally, on the notion that the “American people” said anything on election day –which they most decidedly did NOT unless you have a dog in the hunt you want to snag the bear– there was no national election. The only major race where the war was highlighted clearly was the Lieberman4Senate race and that one was fought by Lieberman as a no prisoners-no quarter given politicial campaign.
And the biggest supporter of the WOT and Iraq won, for the record.
Except, that ad would have highlighted one of the main problems the American people have with the war: the shifting rational.
Easily fixed; I also have video of Democrats sobbing over the genocide in Kosovo and in Darfur, demanding immediate military action — against people who, when compared to Saddam, look like pikers.
You’re not dealing with the Democratic base here, Chase; we actually want to know why brutal regimes that tortures, imprisons, and murders thousands of white Europeans and black Africans stir you to action, even to the point that, as in the case of Kosovo, you ignore the UN, Russia, and China and launch an attack…..but not a dictator who has done the same to hundreds of thousands of people, for decades, in complete and utter defiance of the UN.
And, as a nice completion, I have the text of Bush’s speech on October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he not only lays out completely Saddam’s intransigence and noncompliance on the matter of WMDs, but includes these ringing statements:
Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own. Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security, and for the people of Iraq.
he lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban.
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights — to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.
People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture.
America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
For your information, that was BEFORE the war.
For the umpteenth time: THE RATIONALE NEVER SHIFTED. Except in the minds of the MSM and Democrats. Every time someone isn’t winning the argument and tries to change the subject to, “But they kept shifting the rationale”, you know you’re dealing with a devotee of the Democrats / MSM.
Please go back and read this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
As it clearly shows: The rationale is, and always was, 3-fold:
(1) Saddam’s refusal to co-operate fully with UN weapons inspectors. (Whether or not he still had ready-to-go WMD stockpiles.)
(2) Saddam’s ever-increasing links with international terrorism of all sorts, (including, but not limited to, al Qaeda links).
(3) Humanitarian – that Saddam was killing, imprisoning and torturing (I’m talking real torture here) tens of thousands of his own people, every year.
All three have been borne out to this day.
On that note, I’m formally abandoning this thread for the new one: http://gaypatriot.net/2006/12/05/thanks-to-dems-appeasement-is-back-in-vogue