You’ve heard of “driving while Black?” Well, at US Airways they don’t allow flying while Muslim. Or that’s the impression we’re given by this NY Times story of six imams returning from a religious conference on a U.S. Airways flight. Their offense? They prayed too loudly while at the loading gate. I kid you not:
Six Muslim religious leaders were taken off a US Airways flight in Minneapolis on Monday evening and detained for several hours after some passengers and crew members complained of behavior they deemed suspicious, including prayers at the gate…
The six men detained, all imams, had attended a Minneapolis conference of the North American Imams Federation. They were handcuffed by the police and led off the flight, bound for Phoenix, after reports from passengers and crew members of “unsettling” behavior, according to a police report. One passenger had slipped a note to a flight attendant that began, “6 suspicious Arabic men on plane,” the report said.
To add insult to injury, after being released by the FBI, the men tried to rebook their flights since they still had their US Airways tickets. Here’s what happened:
…On Tuesday morning a US Airways ticket agent refused to book them on another flight to Phoenix. They returned instead on a Northwest Airlines flight.
CAIR’s statement (linked below) goes even further in noting the airline’s hostility toward the Muslim travelers:
US Airways refused…to assist them in obtaining tickets on another airline.
One US Airways employee said that the dead giveaway that they were terrorists was their strange methods of prayer:
In another statement, a gate agent said some of the imams had been praying in Arabic in the gate area. “I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the agent said.
A second imam, Ahmad Tafish Shqeirat, said that three of the six had prayed in the gate area, in the ritual of evening prayers, but had not meant to be disruptive and indeed had taken pains not to disturb other passengers.
A passenger wrote a warning note to a flight attendant about the men claiming that before the flight they were “cursing U.S. involvement with Saddam.” Say what? Does this guy have his facts straight? We overturned Saddam. We weren’t involved with him. And if the imams were criticizing our support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, well then–I’d have to agree with them. It was the height of hypocrisy for Cheney to shake Saddam’s hand in his royal palace in the 1980s, and then call him a dangerous megalomaniac whom the world must be rid of, in 2003. So why should anyone be suspected of being a terrorist because of believing that?
I bet if Pat Robertson led a worship service at a US Airways loading gate the company wouldn’t have had any problem. I bet even if someone spoke in tongues there wouldn’t have been problem.
It’s just a problem of flying while Muslim. So if you are, put away your prayer beads, prayer rug and you might even try some whiteface to lighten your complexion. Otherwise, US Airways has got your number.
It’s interesting that US Airways just proposed buying Delta Airlines. My last post was about a Delta Airlines contract company, Freedom Air, ejecting a nursing mother from a flight. I’d say both companies are made for each other. Maybe the motto of the new company could be “Look at Us Cross-Wise and You’re Outa Here, Chum!”
The Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has released a statement protesting the treatment and calling for Congressional hearings on racial profiling in public transportation settings.
Free Thinking Person says
Although I was sympathetic with some aspects of the plight of the Imams when I first heard about this situation, I wonder how sympathetic they are with the plight of the poor people in Darfur who are the victims of extremist muslims. It seems thjat wherever there is death in the world, and violent death, it is at the hands of this supposed peace loving religion.
I am pretty disgusted now at the lack of concern that the arab governments and Muslim leaders have about the victims worldwide that we see every day as they Muslim faith practices their “religion” of death and destruction.
The patience of the world is fast eroding. Muslims better wise up and fast or they will realize that they do not have the sole right of committing violence against others. A little leadership by the Imams could go a long way to helping ease tensions but we see none forthcoming.
Richard Silverstein says
Your nickname shouldn’t be “Free Thinking Person.” It should be “Free Thinking–Except Where Muslims Are Concerned.”
Frankly, I don’t believe you ever were “sympathetic with some aspects of the plight of the imams.” If you were, pls. tell us what those “aspects” were.
What in heavens name do the 2 completely separate incidents have to do w one another? Do you really mean to tell me you believe these imams approve of Sudan’s treatment of Darfur? How would you know what they believe? Did you ask them?
All death in the world is at the hands of Islam? You are out of yr mind.
Neither the imams nor Muslims in general need take any lessons from you on how to conduct their religion or its affairs.
Why don’t you take your racist hatred elsewhere? The welcome mat is rolled out at LGF. You’d go over big there.
Just Dahlia says
Spot on Richard! I applaud your level head and honest heart. I tried ot make the same points on my blog, but I am humbled by your eloquence and righteousness.
As for you Mr(s) Free Thinking Person, shame on you for such a load of excrement. Are you suggesting that these 6 imams had it coming because Moslems elsewhere are committing atrocities? Would you then say that every Chritistian should be ashamed for every misdeed by every other Chrisitan the world-over? Would you say the same for every Jew? Buddhist? Zoastrian, etc? Please, stop this self-righteous misanthropy. Those 6 imams suffered at the hands of ignorance and racism, (forgive the redundancy)
As i read this post I experienced a palpable deep feeling of shame. I can only begin to imagine the humiliation that one must feel when being treated with such utter and dispicable disrespect and racism. The comments of Free Thinking were deplorable and worthy of repudiation but are indicative of how apparently many people feel and think, including those passengers and US Airways staff involved in this incident.
Woe to us.
Dennis Newman says
“Tikun Olam” — the concept, as opposed to specific individuals’ and organizations’ political take on current events — would not only not require the coddling those who flirt with terror but could be interpreted to disallow it. A number of reputable sources have indicated that the imams were observed by apparently credible witnesses to have behaved in a deliberately provocative manner, including sitting on the plane in 9/11 patterns, sitting in first class seats for which they were not ticketed, asking for seat belt extenders that they did not seem to need and that they placed on the floor, and the list goes on.
Currently, a good case can be made that this incident was purposely precipitated by the imams, either as a little feeler of what typical security measures on domesstic U.S. airlines currently comprise and/or as a political incendiary device. Either way (or both), if that is so, and there is no reason until further investigation says otherwise, to think that it is not so, no Jews need throw in their support with this dubious causse.
Richard Silverstein says
Lord spare us those experts in Jewish mysticism who take it upon themselves to enlighten us as to the “real” meaning of these ancient concepts. So tell us, Rabbi, what does the ancient Kabbalistic concept of tikun olam have to say about terrorism??? BTW, (not for yr edification since you are so untutored–but rather for those who have some interest) the Kabbalah specifically acknowledges the existence of evil in the world and the entire purpose of tikun olam is to repair the damage done to the cosmos by such evil. The process of peaceful reconciliation among warring peoples is one that is perfectly consonant with that ancient mystical principle.
Your wild-eyed theories of the imams hostile intentions are quite hilarious & erroneous. “Sitting in 9/11 patterns?” What would that mean & where is a credible source for this accusation? As for seat belt extenders, the imams themselves said they WERE overweight & needed the extenders. Besides, what were they going to do with the extenders? Strangle someone? If you weren’t such a nut you’d be quite droll.
Currently, you can make NO case that this incident was precipitated by the imams. It clearly was precipitated by overwrought passengers who were more than willing to believe that fellow Americans of a different skin color and ethnicity were up to their worst when no such thing was happening.
Thanks for that advice. But fortunately, readers of this blog don’t follow the advice of loonies like you. They read and make up their own minds. And their judgment, unlike yours, is tempered by reason and evidence.
Jake Haller says
As someone who has davned (prayed) with talis and tefilin (Jewish ritual prayer accessories) in airports such as Heathrow I’m sure I’ve met the curious (if not hostile) stares of onlookers as well.
Also, when I get sunburned I can look pretty Arabic and the short beard adds to it. In Sept ’97 I was in Israel walking outside Machane Yehuda in J’lem where 2 weeks earlier dozens of casualties were suffered from a bomber. He was dressed as a Chasid when his explosive briefcase detonated.
A Border Policemen barked out orders to open my bag and present identification. Was it unpleasant and embarrasing? Yes. Was it necessary? In my opinion, unfortuately but unequivocally, yes it was.
Your response “Besides, what were they going to do with the extenders? Strangle someone?”
Considering on Sept 10 ’01 no one would have conjured up ideas with box cutters either these scenarios are unfortunately not so far-fetched anymore. Of course, the theory of the seat-belt extenders and seat changing requires reliable eyewitness accounts and plausible testimony but IMO it could be a serious mistake to dismiss it grounds of supposed unlikelihood alone.
It sounds a little too easy for those not in positions of authority to arrive in hasty judgement of airline staff who nowadays literally have to, and probably unwantingly have to expand their job scope to law enforcement and life savers as well. I’m not saying your post does just that but there’s no shortage of it emanating from other sources.
Richard Silverstein says
The diff. bet. yr case & the imam case is that a policeman ordered you to open yr bag & he had plausible grounds to do so given the recent bombing. A policeman had nothing to do with turning the imams in. It was a hypersensitive passenger with an extremely suspicous streak, most or all of whose fears about the victims turned out to have been unfounded. For example, I’ve never heard any confirmation fr. any witness or anyone that they were actually saying anything sympathetic to Saddam or hostile to the U.S as this passenger originally claimed.
As for the seat extenders, they were FAT. They admitted that they were. What more proof does anyone need? Would knowing their waist size make you feel more sympathetic?
I do not accept yr. judgment that in this day & age of terror in the skies that outsiders have no right to judge the behavior of airline & government security. Of course we do. That’s the essence of a democracy. There is no doubt that there is a danger & the it is right & fitting to allow a certain amt. of leeway to security personnel. But this incident doesn’t pass the smell test. A passenger got a little over the top & instead of questioning that person’s judgements they immediately assumed the worst. Judgement is required in these situations & in this one it seems like not much was exercised.
And pls. explain to me why after the victims were interviewed & cleared by the FBI, the airline continued to treat them as persona non grata & would not allow them to fly on its planes AND would not help by booking them on another airline. This is treating a flyer with “extreme prejudice” & not fitting for any company that values relationships with its customers.
Dennis Newman says
“Tikun Olam” — the concept–…would not only not require the coddling those who flirt with terror but could be interpreted to disallow it.
[You:] Lord spare us those experts in Jewish mysticism who take it upon themselves to enlighten us as to the “real” meaning of these ancient concepts. So tell us, Rabbi, what does the ancient Kabbalistic concept of tikun olam have to say about terrorism??? BTW, (not for yr edification since you are so untutored–but rather for those who have some interest) the Kabbalah specifically acknowledges the existence of evil in the world and the entire purpose of tikun olam is to repair the damage done to the cosmos by such evil. The process of peaceful reconciliation among warring peoples is one that is perfectly consonant with that ancient mystical principle.
I never claimed to be a rabbi or expert in Jewish mysticism. Discussing and practicing of tikkun olam is not reserved for the mystics, thank God. If the people U.S. Airways deplaned were “warring peoples,” and there’s evidence that they were, airplane cabins are not the forum for conciliation efforts, regardless of whether aforesaid conciliation process is or is not encouraged by Kabbalah.
[You:] Your wild-eyed theories of the imams hostile intentions are quite hilarious & erroneous. “Sitting in 9/11 patterns?” What would that mean & where is a credible source for this accusation? As for seat belt extenders, the imams themselves said they WERE overweight & needed the extenders. Besides, what were they going to do with the extenders? Strangle someone? If you weren’t such a nut you’d be quite droll.
“Sitting in 9/11 patterns” means a group of people purposely not sitting together but occupying strategic locations controlling ingress and egress and access to the pilot’s cabin.
Among my sources are:
• the New York Times
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ), which documents a passenger’s notation of the imams sitting in 9/11 patterns and reports that accounts of the incident varied; that witnesses including a number of passengers and employees, heard the imams making anti-American remarks; that a flight attendant reported to police that the imams requesting seat belt extenders were not overweight; that U.S. Airways says the crew, which effected the removal of the passengers, did so in accordance with the company’s policy on passenger removal; and that one of the removed imams was Omar Ahmad Shahin of Phoenix.
•The AP ( http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20152.html?cat=1 ), which reports that U.S. Airways told police three of the imams had both one-way tickets and no baggage; that a flight attendant told police that the several imams requesting extenders didn’t need them; that the airline’s captain decided, after seeing the passenger’s notation of imam group’s 9/11 seating pattern, that he did not want the imams aboard; that a Federal air marshal and airport police officer agreed that the combination of circumstances justified the action and asked the imams to deplane; and that one of the imams was North American Imams Federation president Imar Shahin.
• The Washington Times ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061128-122902-7522r.htm ) which reports that flight attendants and passengers told police that the imams changed from their assigned seats to the 9/11 pattern, with two taking first class seats they did not purchase; that another airline pilot (understandably unnamed) said such seat occupancy is known in the flight industry as “terrorist probe” behavior [intended to discover gaps in U.S. domestic air security]; and that a Federal air marshal said that the pattern would alarm him since it potentially gave the group control of all of the plane’s ingresses and egresses.
• Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs , Internet Haganah and many other sources, which document that deplaned imam Omar Shahin of Phoenix is closely affiliated with terrorism, and specifically with Kindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc.
• The Muslim Voice corroborates that Omar Shahin of Phoenix is a Kind Hearts Organization representative.
• Israel’s Institute for Counter-Terrorism and the U.S. government ( http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4058.htm ), which document how Kindhearts, funded HAMAS, independently of the Palestinian Authority, in Gaza and the West Bank, and also in Lebanon, sprang up to replenish the funding conduit from the U.S. to HAMAS closed by the U.S. government when it shut down the main known source shortly after 9/11. Then Kindhearts, too, was shut down by the FBI and Treasury and Justice Departments.
[You:] Currently, you can make NO case that this incident was precipitated by the imams. It clearly was precipitated by overwrought passengers who were more than willing to believe that fellow Americans of a different skin color and ethnicity were up to their worst when no such thing was happening.
In fact, I’ve made a reasonable first-draft case that the incident was purposely precipitated by the imams, as a security probe and/or intentional political provocation. You cite no evidence for your “ugly American” contention that I can glean, save for your and CAIR’s outrage and what appears to be a strongly “PC-biased” way of looking at events.
otherwise, to think that it is not so, no Jews need throw in their support with this dubious causse.
[You:] Thanks for that advice. But fortunately, readers of this blog don’t follow the advice of loonies like you. They read and make up their own minds. And their judgment, unlike yours, is tempered by reason and evidence.
Your use of your broad vocabulary to try to ridicule me — sarcastically calling me “Rabbi,” and “looney” (which you misspelled, by the way, unless you meant that I’m a Canadian coin), saying if I weren’t such a nut I’d be quite droll, and using phrases like “not for yr edification since you’re so untutored,” etc. — seem to substitute for argument. In any case, they belie your admonition to others to “play nice or don’t play.”
You create the straw man — in this case, imagining me as a lunatic and unthinking reactionary bigot of some kind, whom you can then shoot down. But I’m not that straw man, and I won’t be shot down that way. Nor will I let you dismiss out of hand my sources simply because some of them espouse ideological positions differing from yours; rather, you have an obligation to show either specifics or a pattern indicating that they and/or I are factually mistaken.
I suspect from some other communiqués on your blog site that readers of your blog are not all of a mind, and that some might trouble to look into the fact-based points I’ve proferred that support the argument I put forward — that this incident was not about anti-Muslim bias but about purposeful provocation by U.S.-based radical Islamists.
Richard Silverstein says
There is not a scintilla of evidence that this is so. If it were, then the FBI would’ve arrested them. Instead it let them go. And by the way, they weren’t ‘deplaned.’ They were ejected with extreme prejudice as possible terrorists.
Considering how you botched yr characterization of the NYT’s account I only wonder at what the other sources you quote really say as opposed to what you say they say. So to set the record straight: the Time story does NOT say the passengers were sitting in “9/11 patterns” or that they were sitting in strategic positions in the plane. The passenger you reference merely listed the seat #s of ea. of the alleged terrorists in order for the authorities to be able to identify them.
Yes, those are prob. the same passengers & employees who confused praying Muslims with ranting terrorists. The same passengers & employees who called the men “Arabic.” And as I note in my post, the passenger who started everything didn’t exactly accuse the men of “making anti-American remarks,” when she wrote “All were cursing U.S. involvement with Saddaam [sic].” Sounds to me like everything & every witness involved in this incident is mixed up.
After the publicity given to the issue of terrorists who in the past have bought one way tickets & brought no luggage, do you seriously believe that these 3 alleged terrorists would’ve called attention to themselves in this way knowing that this is one of the first principles that security personnel examine in looking for terrorists? And last I checked, it was not illegal to buy a one-way ticket nor to travel without luggage nor to do both when traveling. If doing so is such a sure predictor of terrorist inclination then I’d think the practice would be outlawed. Since it hasn’t, your “evidence” is disqualified as useless.
Wrong again, the article you quote notes the pilot decided to remove the men after reading the passenger’s note which I referred to above. There is no mention whatsoever about a “9/11 seating pattern” or any reference whatsoever to where the victims were sitting.
Oooh, the guy is the president of a Muslim cleric association. Must be a BIG terrorist. Puh-leeze! Should we start examining the bona fides of rabbis belonging to CCAR or the Rabbinical Assembly (the Conservative and Reform rabbinical groups)? Since when does being an imam brand you as a terror suspect??
You’ve quoted from a long list of rightist pro-Israel sites (in which I include the Washington Times), which I find universally lacking in credibility & unworthy of taking seriously enough to refute. When a credible media site quotes any of the material in these sites which you refer to pls. pass along the links & I’ll review them. Till then, propagandists & ideologues do not pass for credible analysts regarding this subject or the Israeli-Arab conflict in general.
My ass, you have. You’ve proven nothing and presented a ‘case’ that is ludicrous.
“Closely affiliated with terrorism.” Really, you haven’t presented a scintilla of evidence that this is true & this will not pass muster at this site. Completely treif & don’t try that crap here again. If you want to level such a charge you present real evidence with a link. By “real evidence” I don’t include garbage sites like LGF, but credible ones. And if you can’t understand why LGF is not “credible” then you’re about as disingenuous a propagandist as I had you pegged to be.
Regarding the imam’s charity work, given the absolute mess that our government has made of both fighting terror and relations between the government and the Muslim American community, I no longer have any faith that any action taken by either the Justice Department or Treasury regarding Muslim Americans is really based on legitimate security interests of this country. They have botched just about every so called terrorism case they’ve tried in U.S. courts. They have labeled scores if not hundreds of Muslims as terrorists or sympathizers who courts of law and juries later determine not to be.
So do I trust that a Treasury designation saying a Muslim charity is a conduit to support Palestinian terror? Not unless I see loads of evidence to support such a designation. If not, no I don’t trust anything those guys say. They’ve been proven too many times to be liars and simply incompetent.
No. I used the phrase “loonies like you” which is correctly spelled. And if you could make this mistake from a careless reading of my comment how many others do you make?
Look, I don’t go in for wild-eyed conspiracy theories of either the anti-Zionist or pro-Israel camp. I definitely don’t go in for ultra-Israel folk like you making unfounded accusations that someone is a “terrorist” w/o offering any credible proof. So when the loons come here & try to pass this off as serious argument, I get a tad irascible and let loose with a few sarcastic epithets.
Many people come here to argue with me but their arguments are reasoned even if I disagree w. them. Jake Haller’s comment in this thread is a perfect example. If you read my reply, you won’t find the same sarcasm because I have more respect for Jake’s perspective than yours. He questions my judgments in a civil way and asks questions of me but doesn’t fling conspiracy theories or visceral hate. Try emulating Jake the next time you comment here & yr. treatment will be different.
Thousands of other media & blog sources have revealed the lame-assed propaganda that passes for “evidence” or “fact” at LGF, Washington Times, & their ilk. My job here is not to regurgitate these debunking arguments. You can choose to believe that Charles Johnson is the gold standard. The rest of us know he’s the dreck standard. Far be it fr. me to attempt to disabuse you of your willful & woeful ignorance.
After reading the 100th or 500th comment like yours I can tell you that you are of the garden variety commenter type here who has absolutely no interest in anything I write about. Rather, you all feel it your God-anointed duty to do battle with me like the knights of old on behalf of Israel’s honor and the dignity of the Jewish people (God spare us “saviors” like you all). So if you come here to influence all the other ultra-Israel nitwits who publish comments here, you’re wasting yr time. All of you only want to hear the sound of your own windbag voices. You’d profit much more fr. publishing yr screeds at LGF & the other shmattes you list in yr comment. Many more of you & yr ideological ilk will read yr ideas there than here. As for my more moderate and progressive readers, they will laugh you out of town.
Dennis Newman says
(1) You edited my response to exclude references to sources that I guess you don’t like. If you don’t think sources are legit, say so, but don’t break the basic rules of discourse by editing so as to unfairly weaken the argument of one with whom you differ. [In fairness to you, you gave me a reason for doing so, in a private communication. But, in fairness to me, you should have let my comment stand as written the first time; the second time, I would’ve been warned.] Then you accuse me of quoting from a long list of right-wing pro-Israel sites. Would that include the NY Times, AP, The Muslim Voice, etc.?
(2) You would mercilessly tear apart my interpretations, but are oh-so-selective yourself in quoting articles so as to support your slant. And you disallow most-reasonable integration of reported material when such does not jibe with your position. Ex: You quote the NY Times article to support your flying-while-Muslim allegation, ignoring its reportage that suggests otherwise, particularly the photo of the passenger’s note depicting the imams’ 9/11 seating pattern, which, if not immediately apparent to you, certainly was to the flight captain and avionics folks (and to me, by the way).
(3) The links you deleted from my comment connect to an array of sources supporting the allegation that Imam Shahin is a fundraiser and front for terrorists. If you want to believe there isn’t ample dirt on the KINDHEARTS charity, i.e., that it purposely funded HAMAS, that’s your right, but to do so you must discount en toto the U.S. and Israeli governments, Congressional testimony by experts, etc. To me, your stance on KINDHEARTS seems dangerously ideologically naive.
(4) Seems to me you have an M.O. of bashing those with different viewpoints, then covering/justifying it by damning the opponent — this time by presuming I’m some kind of “garden-variety” “ultra-Israel” “windbag” “nitwit” who ingests “treif” “dreck” (figuratively speaking, I’ll assume) so as to be full of “willful woeful ignorance.” On the contrary, I’m a middle-of-the-roader, interested in learning as much as I can, committed to reading/hearing all sides (Holocaust denial arguments excepted if you dont mind), arguably better informed than many, and willing to change my mind if I’m convinced I’m mistaken; and, your assertion notwithstanding, I’m interested in what you think and write (having just discovered your blog), though I must admit I find your handling of opinion differences extremely and unnecessarily nasty, smug, off-putting. Chalk that contradiction up to my substantial intellectual curiosisty.
(5) You engage in backwards reasoning, for example, in arguing that the imams could not be terrorists or terrorist front men acting as provocateurs because the F.B.I. did not have cause to arrest any of them. I find it hard to believe that you do not know the nature of Islamic terrorists’ exploitation of Western nations’ rights-protective legal systems.
(6) In accusing me of only wanting to hear my own “windbag” voice, I believe you are engaging in projection.
(7) I clearly never said or implied that an imam heading an Islamic organization is ipso facto a terror suspect, but rather,identified the imam in question, who is such an organizational head, for the clear purpose of pointing out that individual to the readers’ attention, precisely because an array of sources (some of which I later presented in my argument) refer to this same individual as being a funder of and front for terrorists. That you would conclude I meant something bad by identifying the imam’s organizational position and/or title is again, I think, due to something akin to projection on your part.
Richard Silverstein says
No, I didn’t “exclude” your references. The names of the sites you referred to are still there. I excluded yr. LINKS to propaganda sites. Linking is the currency of the internet & I see no reason to allow those who oppose my views & oppose peace to promote sites that are anathema to the values I hold dear.
And I did in the previous comment I wrote explaining why I was removing the links. Not only have I said so here, but in previous threads here I have explained the same thing. Anyone, who follows this subject on this blog will know very well my attitude toward rightist propaganda sites. You are not the first person, nor will you be the last, who’s tried to slip in propaganda links.
Bullcrap. “Basic rules of discourse???” Pls. explain to me what these rules are & where you dredged them up. These are the basic rules of discourse on THIS site: if you want to promote hate against either Arabs or Israelis and wish to include links to propaganda sites that promote these views, the links will likely be removed (but the names of the sites will remain). But if you promote hateful views but wish to use credible media sites, then links will not be removed.
And I DID NOT “weaken yr argument.” The weakness of yr argument is there for all to see since I have not edited, removed or changed a single word you wrote. If I did edit yr comment I would likely have improved yr argument & I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to do that.
You again have not read what’s on the pg. I removed the link to the NY Times in yr comment since the same article is linked in my post & you used a link that would die after 7 days. I did NOT remove any links in yr comments to sites that were credible so the AP story remains linked.
The job of this blog is not to make you satisfied. I make editorial judgments as all bloggers do. I did not include the note since I quoted extensively fr. it in my post & thought displaying the image wasn’t necessary. But I’ll be happy to upload & display it here [see it in the body of the post above] because it will confirm the feebleness of yr argument that there was any “9/11 seating pattern.”
I have no doubt that Islamic charities raised & still raise funds for Hamas. But the problem with the positions of the Israeli & U.S. governments was/is that there is/was no distinction bet. Hamas’ social service programs and its military wing. I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that links any charity to direct funding of terror. But even if there were, Hamas expends NOW far & away the greatest energy on its political activities & social services. While Hamas certainly still maintains a military wing, & one which continues to engage in unacceptable practices like rocket launchings & kidnapping an Israeli soldier, it has radically revised & diminished its military program.
Oh, yes and so many others have written here protesting that they are “liberal” or “middle of the roaders.” I’ve got news for you. If you hate Muslims; if you think every Muslim’s out to get either you or some other Jew or Israeli; if you think that every Muslim charity is a conduit for terror; if you believe Israel has to fight the Palestinians till the very last man/woman; if you believe the Occupation is just; if you believe that Israel should not negotiate with the Palestinians–then you ain’t no ‘middle of the roader.’
More unsubstantiated nonsense. How exactly do radical Muslims “exploit Western rights-protective legal systems?” You mean to tell me that you truly believe that the current Bushite “legal system” which approves torture, extra-judicial security trials, rampant spying on our own citizens not to mention the USA Patriot Act–that this is a “rights-protective legal system?? Now, I know you drove off the road quite a ways back. And further, what precisely in our rights protective legal system prevented the FBI fr. arresting the imams asses if it deemed them a security threat?? In this day & age, the FBI doesn’t mess around w. things like this. If it suspects you (even with very little basis), it arrests you. The fact that the FBI gave these individuals a clean bill of health means they had NOTHING (do you hear me–NOTHING) to pin on them.
And I say yr sources are ideological loci of bigotry whose accusations contain not a shred of truth. If their arguments were sound, you’d quote them here (& pls. NOT link to them). Any of my readers can tell that your “sources” are going to present as much hard evidence of criminal activity as you yourself present in yr comments here–which is precisely none.
Dennis Newman says
As the following column indicates, the removal of several imams from a plane last month is most arguably not about flying-while-Muslim, or intolerance on the part of Americans or the airline, etc., but, rather, about behavior that was reasonably concerning and almost certainly deliberately intended to be provocative. Before you again erroneously blast me as a reactionary/Islamophobe, you should know that I live without rancor as a minority in the midst of one of many Muslim neighborhoods in NYC — where I proudly witnessed our police *protect* the city’s mosques in the wake of 9/11.
That’s just not what this is about, or what Mr. Shahin is about, or what C.A.I.R. is about.
Ordering imams off flight was a reasonable act
Richard Silverstein says
First, I do not publish entire articles that are propagandistic in nature. The article you appropriated is such propaganda. Second, you republished the entire article at this blog which is a violation of copyright. Should the Star Tribune decide they didn’t like what you did, they would come after me for violating their copyright.
So there’s a link to yr propaganda. Do not quote entire articles in my comment threads. Summarizing & a short quotation suffices quite well.