Scary Article about an airline flight with 14 Middle Eastern Men

[Ron Snipes]

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711

In this article, the writer describes her husband as "anxious"...that would
NOT have properly described me.

[Steve]

> In this article, the writer describes her husband as "anxious"...that
would
> NOT have properly described me.
>

I would have loudly and openly began organizing the passengers to deal with
the situation. Hello Mr Reasonably Young and Fit Male Passenger #1 ? Do
you see the raghead sitting in the row in front of you ? He is your
responsibility. If he makes any threatening moves, it is your job to
restrain him. #2, you are to assist #1, got it ? Mr. Raghead, you're
making everybody uncomfortable with your movement. Don't get up from your
seat again. If you do, it will be the last time. At this point the Air
Marshals if they really were on the plane will step in, tell me to sit down
and shut up, and take control of the aircraft, which is what they should
have done to begin with. To hell with being culturally sensitive. When
seven of them stood up in unison, that's when the closest one to me is
getting challenged and possibly getting his ticket punched.

[Peter Duniho]

You're right, it IS scary such an ignorant person managed to get published.


Here's the letter I wrote to them:
----------------
Living is dangerous. If you want to be sure you're not going to be killed by
a terrorist, build a bomb shelter and stay in there. Do not EVER leave it.
And definitely don't open the door for a terrorist, including the white
ones.

The more sensible of us will recognize that we can choose either to live in
a totalitarian police state, in which case the terrorists will have at least
a slightly lower chance of success (but still well above non-zero), or we
can choose to live in a traditional American-style free country, in which
terrorists and law abiding citizens alike have the freedom to move about the
country and do whatever they like as long as they are not hurting anyone.

Maybe the guys on the airplane were terrorists. Maybe they weren't. But as
near as I can tell, they didn't actually hurt anyone, nor did they commit
any crime. Keeping in mind that terrorist attacks almost always are preceded
by some other illegal activity (usually involving the acquisition of
firearms, explosives, or the like), it is perfectly reasonable to limit our
law enforcement activity to focusing on ACTUAL illegal activities, rather
than stirring everyone into a paranoid frenzy.

Personally, I wonder if Annie Jacobsen isn't a white supremacist, involved
in her own secret terrorist activities. Perhaps her article was completely
fictional, written for the sole purpose of distracting law enforcement
organizations so that they don't notice her and her friends scheming to blow
something up. Or perhaps it did happen, and she's just taking advantage of
the situation to hide her illegal activities. Either way, maybe it would be
a good idea if WomensWallStreet.com passed along this critical information
to the FBI, CIA, and HSD so that their agents can more closely monitor her
actions. They should exercise the Patriot Act to its fullest extent, making
sure to secretly eavesdrop on her communications, as well as searching her
entire house and any other property, with no public record to alert her to
the fact that they did.

When she's comfortable with that idea, then she and the others on that
flight can go around scaring themselves and trying to scare others into a
mob hysteria just because they see someone not like them doing something not
like what they would do. Until then, they need to keep their sticky,
ignorant fingers off of my Constitution.

Thank you,

Peter Duniho

[tscottme]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> You're right, it IS scary such an ignorant person managed to get
published.
>
>
> Here's the letter I wrote to them:
> ----------------
> Living is dangerous. If you want to be sure you're not going to be killed
by
> a terrorist, build a bomb shelter and stay in there. Do not EVER leave it.
> And definitely don't open the door for a terrorist, including the white
> ones.
>
> The more sensible of us will recognize that we can choose either to live
in
> a totalitarian police state, in which case the terrorists will have at
least
> a slightly lower chance of success (but still well above non-zero), or we
> can choose to live in a traditional American-style free country, in which
> terrorists and law abiding citizens alike have the freedom to move about
the
> country and do whatever they like as long as they are not hurting anyone.
>
> Maybe the guys on the airplane were terrorists. Maybe they weren't. But as
> near as I can tell, they didn't actually hurt anyone, nor did they commit
> any crime. Keeping in mind that terrorist attacks almost always are
preceded
> by some other illegal activity (usually involving the acquisition of
> firearms, explosives, or the like), it is perfectly reasonable to limit
our
> law enforcement activity to focusing on ACTUAL illegal activities, rather
> than stirring everyone into a paranoid frenzy.
<snip>

The Sept 11 hijackers didn't break any law until they started slicing
passengers with box cutters, spraying mace, and rushing the cockpit.
Everyone on an aircraft after Sept 11 has to act in a way to not provoke
reasonable suspicion by all others. After Sept 11, what is reasonable
suspicion has changed. Just as after you slip and fall on particular set of
stairs you are reasonable in a more careful examination of them or the next
set of stairs you approach. Suspicions must be investigated. I don't wish
to impress the world with my ability to rationalize away suspicious
behavior. Suspicious behavior must be investigated promptly and anyone
taking offense can speak to a lawyer afterwards.

Back to the original story, a passenger should have complained to the flight
crew, or a passenger should have attempted to get in the the line to use the
forward lav while the suspicious men were playing musical johns. That would
have either interrupted the trial run or provoked a discussion which could
be used as a pretext for any flight crew to close the lav or further
investigate.

I see no value in going to my grave to make some historian happy. Permanent
critics will never accept any action we take to defend ourselves so I
couldn't give a rip about trying to make them happy. I'm over it and don't
much care if anyone else likes it. Any apparent coordinated acitvitiy by a
group of passengers near the cockpit should be promptly investigated and
stopped unless proven to be innocent. And yes it is reasonable to notice
that people of any description are involved. You can call me a name, I
don't care. But if I can notice if that object swimming besides my
surfboard is a shark or a dolphin I can notice a person's description and
activity.

It's not racist for a crew member to break line to investigate the lav if
someone complains. Nobody was being denied anything and answering a
question is not a civil rights violation. Any item brought onboard should
be subject to scrutiny by a crew member if suspicion is raised. Any area of
the aircraft must be investigated if suspicion is raised. Being cautions
might hurt someone's feelings, but it shouldn't. Being lax could kill
thousands.


--
Scott

[C J Campbell]

Well, since this is the second time this article has been mentioned, I
should point out that the story is unverified. Snopes reports that the
article has been blogged to death. WWS has promised a follow-up article, but
that has not yet been printed.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp

[Peter Duniho]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> The Sept 11 hijackers didn't break any law until they started slicing
> passengers with box cutters, spraying mace, and rushing the cockpit.

You mean other than bringing box cutters and mace onto an airplane, right?

Oh yeah, and entering the US illegally (for several of them, anyway).
Right?

Other than THOSE illegal acts, you mean. Right?

In any case, it's clear that you miss the point. We will never be perfectly
safe. Why should our lives suck in the meantime? We all die eventually
anyway. I'd rather not get killed by a terrorist, but if I'm basically
living my life in fear and suspicion, that's not much of a life at all. I'd
rather live a free life and enjoy myself, and accept the risk that I might
die earlier than I thought I would.

I'm not against security in general, but when we start suspecting people
just because they look different (without an overt illegal act), we lose
what makes us American.

Do you really think anyone on the airplane would've noticed how those men
behaved, if they had been white? It wasn't their behavior that drew
suspicion...it was their race. And that's racist.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, since this is the second time this article has been mentioned, I
> should point out that the story is unverified.

See? I knew it was just a distraction for the author's own illicit
activities!

String her up!

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Sept 11 hijackers didn't break any law until they started slicing
> > passengers with box cutters, spraying mace, and rushing the cockpit.
>
> You mean other than bringing box cutters and mace onto an airplane, right?
>

Actually, before 9/11 it was not illegal to bring box cutters onto an
airplane. I don't know about mace. Anyway, didn't I hear somewhere that the
box cutters were planted on the planes before the hijackings?

> Oh yeah, and entering the US illegally (for several of them, anyway).
> Right?
>
> Other than THOSE illegal acts, you mean. Right?
>
> In any case, it's clear that you miss the point. We will never be
perfectly
> safe. Why should our lives suck in the meantime? We all die eventually
> anyway. I'd rather not get killed by a terrorist, but if I'm basically
> living my life in fear and suspicion, that's not much of a life at all.
I'd
> rather live a free life and enjoy myself, and accept the risk that I might
> die earlier than I thought I would.

I like that sentiment, but our lives would suck even worse if we made no
effort at all to protect and defend ourselves. We would all just end up as
slaves. The key is striking a proper balance between freedom and safety.
Just where that balance lies differs widely among the population and even
among each individual from day to day.

Doing nothing and allowing terrorists to destroy commercial air travel is
not an acceptable option. Neither is doing ineffective stupid things, which
seems to be the primary focus now.

>
> I'm not against security in general, but when we start suspecting people
> just because they look different (without an overt illegal act), we lose
> what makes us American.
>
> Do you really think anyone on the airplane would've noticed how those men
> behaved, if they had been white? It wasn't their behavior that drew
> suspicion...it was their race. And that's racist.

Actually, I would have noticed their behavior. There are many terrorist
groups out there, and even al Qaeda has members of many different
nationalities. We still have people like Timothy McVeigh, the ELF, and other
terrorist organizations that have nothing to do with the Middle East. I
forget where the car bomb was invented (Ireland?), but it is fairly stock in
trade for every terrorist group in the world, now. No doubt hijackings will
continue to be popular, not only with Middle Eastern terror groups, but
Croatian and Basque extremists, the Red Brigades, Cuban nationalists, and
other groups that have used hijackings in the past.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, before 9/11 it was not illegal to bring box cutters onto an
> airplane. I don't know about mace. Anyway, didn't I hear somewhere that
the
> box cutters were planted on the planes before the hijackings?

Mace has always been. More than once (prior to 9/11), my wife has forgotten
she was carrying and was forced to leave it behind as she went through
airport security. I'm surprised box cutters weren't illegal, but now that
you mention it, that sounds right. However, planting box cutters ahead of
time spells conspiracy, which is illegal.

That said, I don't know for a fact that the box cutters were planted. If
they weren't illegal, why would they need to be planted? And if they were
planted, who planted them, and why haven't they been arrested (or have they
and I just didn't notice)?

Anyway, my point is that most or all of the people involved in the 9/11
attacks were NOT squeaky clean.

> I like that sentiment, but our lives would suck even worse if we made no
> effort at all to protect and defend ourselves. We would all just end up as
> slaves. The key is striking a proper balance between freedom and safety.
> Just where that balance lies differs widely among the population and even
> among each individual from day to day.

I agree and said as much. But the balance surely falls well beyond
suspecting people just because of how they look.

We had a recent event here in the Seattle area, in which a dark-skinned (not
even Middle-Eastern) person was questioned by several different law
enforcement personnel after he took pictures at the Ballard locks. They
even visited him at his home.

The people described on the plane did sound a little weird to me. However,
I wasn't there, and don't know for a fact that they were indeed acting
exactly as described. Prejudiced people "see" all sorts of things that
didn't actually happen. Furthermore, for all the author knows, they were
passing the time on the plane by playing some sort of game ("hide something
in the lavatory, or elsewhere on the plane, someone else find it", I
dunno...something like that), or were involved in some project unrelated to
terrorist activity.

But in any case, other than inspecting the areas of the airplane that
appeared to be of interest to the oddly behaving men, the authorities had no
reason to detain the men any further, without any concrete evidence.

> Actually, I would have noticed their behavior.

For better or for worse, you are a unique individual. :) I seriously doubt
a more typical person would have.

> There are many terrorist groups out there

Indeed there are. And as long as people continue to be scared half to death
every time they see an Arab board their airplane, they are going to have too
much tunnel vision to notice the real threats around them.

Pete

[CB]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
Until then, they need to keep their sticky,
> ignorant fingers off of my Constitution.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Peter Duniho

Our constitution

[CB]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Sept 11 hijackers didn't break any law until they started slicing
> > passengers with box cutters, spraying mace, and rushing the cockpit.
>
> You mean other than bringing box cutters and mace onto an airplane, right?
>
> Oh yeah, and entering the US illegally (for several of them, anyway).
> Right?
>
> Other than THOSE illegal acts, you mean. Right?
>
> In any case, it's clear that you miss the point. We will never be
perfectly
> safe. Why should our lives suck in the meantime? We all die eventually
> anyway. I'd rather not get killed by a terrorist, but if I'm basically
> living my life in fear and suspicion, that's not much of a life at all.
I'd
> rather live a free life and enjoy myself, and accept the risk that I might
> die earlier than I thought I would.
>
> I'm not against security in general, but when we start suspecting people
> just because they look different (without an overt illegal act), we lose
> what makes us American.
>
> Do you really think anyone on the airplane would've noticed how those men
> behaved, if they had been white? It wasn't their behavior that drew
> suspicion...it was their race. And that's racist.

Their race drew attention, their behavior drew suspicion.

[Earl Grieda]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, before 9/11 it was not illegal to bring box cutters onto an
> > airplane. I don't know about mace. Anyway, didn't I hear somewhere that
> > the box cutters were planted on the planes before the hijackings?
>
> Mace has always been. More than once (prior to 9/11), my wife has
> forgotten she was carrying and was forced to leave it behind as she went
> through airport security. I'm surprised box cutters weren't illegal, but
> now that you mention it, that sounds right. However, planting box
> cutters ahead of time spells conspiracy, which is illegal.
>
> That said, I don't know for a fact that the box cutters were planted. If
> they weren't illegal, why would they need to be planted? And if they were
> planted, who planted them, and why haven't they been arrested (or have
> they and I just didn't notice)?
>
> Anyway, my point is that most or all of the people involved in the 9/11
> attacks were NOT squeaky clean.
>

In my mind, it would appear to be difficult to prove any box cutters were
planted for 9/11, although its fun to speculate. Personally, I think that
is giving them to much credit. However, after reading this I realized that
I had forgotten the proof that box cutters were involved in 9/11. I seem to
remember reading of a phone call that said the hijackers had box cutters,
but I can't think of anything else. Were any box cutters found in any of
the attack/crash sites that would appear to have been on the planes, or is
there anything else that proves box cutters were involved?

Earl G.

[tscottme]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Sept 11 hijackers didn't break any law until they started slicing
> > passengers with box cutters, spraying mace, and rushing the cockpit.
>
> You mean other than bringing box cutters and mace onto an airplane, right?
>
> Oh yeah, and entering the US illegally (for several of them, anyway).
> Right?
>
> Other than THOSE illegal acts, you mean. Right?
>
> In any case, it's clear that you miss the point. We will never be
perfectly
> safe. Why should our lives suck in the meantime? We all die eventually
> anyway. I'd rather not get killed by a terrorist, but if I'm basically
> living my life in fear and suspicion, that's not much of a life at all.
I'd
> rather live a free life and enjoy myself, and accept the risk that I might
> die earlier than I thought I would.
>
> I'm not against security in general, but when we start suspecting people
> just because they look different (without an overt illegal act), we lose
> what makes us American.
>
> Do you really think anyone on the airplane would've noticed how those men
> behaved, if they had been white? It wasn't their behavior that drew
> suspicion...it was their race. And that's racist.
>
> Pete
>

You did read the part of the story describing all the behavior of the men,
right? You seem to think that having olive skin makes one exempt from being
observed. It's not that one olive-skinned men made one sideways glance at
another olive-skinned man. The story described apparent coordinated
behavior. Make yourself feel anyway you like by pretending Sept 11 involved
an ethically diverse group of terrorists.

Box cutters were not illegal on Sept 11. I don't exactly how the "mace"
made it on the aircraft, but ask anyone that has worked the ramp at an
airport, get a job in any number of ground service jobs, or make alliance
with someone in such a job, and you can pretty much smuggle a pink elephant
on to the aircraft. I guarantee you that just as I did in the past I can
get a job with a catering or fueling contractor. Once you get the job you
will have opportunity to secret items on the aircraft, even under the new
rules.

It's not racist to notice the description of people. Even if it was racist,
asking a question is not a hardship. A crew member very well can "break
line" and investigate the lavatory. The point of the exercise is not to try
and impress the ACLU with what obvious things we can all pretend are
invisible. The point of the exercise is safe interstate transportation by
aircraft.

If you or anyone of any description is so sensitive that being asked a
question is interpreted as persecution, stay home or fly on ACLU airlines.

It's silly to move from we can't be 100% safe to we shouldn't take
reasonable precations. You made the point you will not connect the
description of passengers and their behavior, good for you. Why must your
decision be forced on all other passengers? If the described passengers
hadn't appeared to be taking coordinated action, if they had all remained in
their seats reading magazines, listening to music, or sleeping and they were
singled out, you might have a point. But even if they had done all that and
a crew member asked them questions, that's not a hardship. I see no reason
to conduct security according to the preferences of the most sensitive
person available.

--
Scott

[Peter Duniho]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> You did read the part of the story describing all the behavior of the men,
> right?

I read the entire thing, first word to last.

> You seem to think that having olive skin makes one exempt from being
> observed.

If you would bother to pay attention, you'd understand that's not what I'm
saying.

> It's not that one olive-skinned men made one sideways glance at
> another olive-skinned man. The story described apparent coordinated
> behavior.

That doesn't justify the treatment they got.

> Box cutters were not illegal on Sept 11. I don't exactly how the "mace"
> made it on the aircraft, but ask anyone that has worked the ramp at an
> airport, get a job in any number of ground service jobs, or make alliance
> with someone in such a job, and you can pretty much smuggle a pink
elephant
> on to the aircraft.

Of course you can. No amount of security will prevent that. Humans are
falliable and corruptable, and there's always a way to beat the system.
That's my point? Why should we spend our lives in a panic, about something
we have no way to fix?

> I guarantee you that just as I did in the past I can
> get a job with a catering or fueling contractor. Once you get the job you
> will have opportunity to secret items on the aircraft, even under the new
> rules.

I never said you wouldn't. I have no idea why you think I did, or why you
think this particular train of thought is relevant.

> It's not racist to notice the description of people. Even if it was
racist,
> asking a question is not a hardship.

Now I'm wondering if YOU read the article. The men were inconvenienced a
LOT more than just being asked a question or two.

> If you or anyone of any description is so sensitive that being asked a
> question is interpreted as persecution, stay home or fly on ACLU airlines.

Now I'm pretty certain you didn't bother to read the entire article. Please
come back when you have.

Pete

[CB]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You did read the part of the story describing all the behavior of the
men,
> > right?
>
> I read the entire thing, first word to last.
>
> > You seem to think that having olive skin makes one exempt from being
> > observed.
>
> If you would bother to pay attention, you'd understand that's not what I'm
> saying.
>
> > It's not that one olive-skinned men made one sideways glance at
> > another olive-skinned man. The story described apparent coordinated
> > behavior.
>
> That doesn't justify the treatment they got.
>
> > Box cutters were not illegal on Sept 11. I don't exactly how the "mace"
> > made it on the aircraft, but ask anyone that has worked the ramp at an
> > airport, get a job in any number of ground service jobs, or make
alliance
> > with someone in such a job, and you can pretty much smuggle a pink
> elephant
> > on to the aircraft.
>
> Of course you can. No amount of security will prevent that. Humans are
> falliable and corruptable, and there's always a way to beat the system.
> That's my point? Why should we spend our lives in a panic, about
something
> we have no way to fix?
>
> > I guarantee you that just as I did in the past I can
> > get a job with a catering or fueling contractor. Once you get the job
you
> > will have opportunity to secret items on the aircraft, even under the
new
> > rules.
>
> I never said you wouldn't. I have no idea why you think I did, or why you
> think this particular train of thought is relevant.
>
> > It's not racist to notice the description of people. Even if it was
> racist,
> > asking a question is not a hardship.
>
> Now I'm wondering if YOU read the article. The men were inconvenienced a
> LOT more than just being asked a question or two.
>
> > If you or anyone of any description is so sensitive that being asked a
> > question is interpreted as persecution, stay home or fly on ACLU
airlines.
>
> Now I'm pretty certain you didn't bother to read the entire article.
Please
> come back when you have.
>
> Pete

****
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/****

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I'm surprised box cutters weren't illegal, but now that
> you mention it, that sounds right.

Although I never carried a box cutter, I used to carry a small pocketknife (about
2.5" blade). Security never blinked an eye about that prior to 9/11.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:21:34 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised box cutters weren't illegal, but now that
>> you mention it, that sounds right.
>
>Although I never carried a box cutter, I used to carry a small pocketknife (about

Actually, I do.
I have one of the Schefeld(sp?) folding box cutters. I use it around
the shop more than I do knives or chisels. (works great for trimming
fiberglass lay-ups) It has a belt clip and I rarely remember to leave
it in the shop when I go to town. The blade is only 3/4 or 1 inch.

>2.5" blade). Security never blinked an eye about that prior to 9/11.

I remember in the "old days" they'd take the pen, or jack knife and
measure it against a finger, then give it back.

Depending on where you are and what you've been doing it is quite easy
to forget your are carrying a *big* knife as it has become second
nature.

I know one couple who spent several months in South America. Most of
the time was out in the country/jungle.

They were standing in line to board the plane when security pointed
out he couldn't take the knife as carry on. <:-)) (He forgot he
still had a large hunting knife on his belt) Time was short and the
luggage had already been checked so he decided to just leave the
knife.

As they were boarding, one of the security people walked up and said,
"Here, you look honest, just put it in your pack and leave it there".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>George Patterson
> In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
> In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Ron Snipes > wrote:
>http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
>
>In this article, the writer describes her husband as "anxious"...that would
>NOT have properly described me.
>
*sigh* I will not dismiss the author's claimed anxiety. However, I noted the
use of Anne Coulter's writings to buttress at least one point. That is an
immediate red flag. Big red flag. Agenda warning.

That's right. I'm prejudiced.

My BS detector is twitching.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/