Well,
there is a certain realism to profiling.
A bunch of muslims praying on a plane, even before 9-11, would make anyone weird out.

They don't need be muslims; could be orange suites, christian, wikens, etc...

Any group behavior in a public space that draws attention to itself demands attention, by definition.

You know, everybody talks about fascism, but nobody wants to actually try it out. Until now.
Let's make sure this is archived, all his statements, all his supporters. It's good to know that people will be changing their names a hundred years from now to disassociate themselves from this reptile.

Like Bush, I think Newt is a very sick man.

"If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you," Gingrich said.

Now that's the extremity of being freaked out.

"any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist" - code for brown skin.

Newt should be arrested for pretending to be an American.

"If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you," Gingrich said.

And how is this controversial at all - except to liberals? He's just saying it's better to be safe than sorry. What's the problem with a little inconvenience for terrorist-looking people to ensure another 9/11 doesn't happen? I'm certain the American people wouldn't have any problem with it.

Newt is so totally freaked out.

You'd expect someone like this to start shouting 'Witches! Witches! Drown the cat!'

I didn't know "praying" in an airport meant one was "pretending to be a terrorist." I always figured it meant someone (or several someones) were just hoping to get to their destination ok. Silly me.

BTW, gt - it's "Wiccans" :)

What I find really interesting, though, is that these six were "supposedly" sitting in the same seats as the 9/11 terrorists. Um, did the people who observed them sitting in the "same" seats specify which flight they were mimicking? Or did the terrorists use the same seating chart on each of the flights? And if they WERE actually mimicking the seating chart of one of the flights, was the 6th guy sitting on someone's lap - because there were only 5 terrorists on each flight (except for the one that only had 4.)

At any rate, near as I can tell, if we can't really take the "sitting in the same seats as the 9/11 terrorists claim" serious (and in case you didn't notice, I really don't think we can - I'm not sure how anyone would really be able to tell for sure - especially when you throw in that there were, what, 2 different airlines involved, and not every airline uses the exact same method of numbering their seats....), that pretty much leaves their being Muslim and praying before the flight as being the extent of their "suspicious" behaviour - and that just strikes me as a bit thin, even for a dickwad like Gingrich.

Now a Christian praying before renting a moving van, that would have me spooked.

And how could anyone looking at them possibly know they had sat in the same seats as the Sept. 11 hijackers.?

Republicans. Tough guys. They don't have the guts of your average canary, but they make ten times the noise.

they apparently don't have the morals of your average canary either.

My question is why, if they're subject to such abuse at airports, do muslims come here anyways? There are plenty of countries where no-one has problems with hanging homosexuals, stoning raped women to death, beheading infidels, or any of the other fun things the "religion of peace" seems to sanction. Why would they insist on going where they're not wanted?

I wonder if Newt thinks it's okay to pretend to be married... twice.

I'm pretty sure the 911 terrorists did NOT pray at the gate before they got on the plane. So, shouldn't NOT praying be construed as acting like a terrorist, rather than praying?

This really boils down to Gringrich's belief that all Muslims are terrorists. As I remember, he did not believe that all Irish were terrorists during the conflict in Norhtern Ireland. Why the difference?

Isn't it clear that male suicide bombers always shave their beards and do everything to blend in before their big act? And isn't clear that they've succeeded in making us stupider than we were before?

If you give Newt Gingrich any signal that you're a witch, then the burden of proving that you shouldn't be burnt at the stake is on you.

Newt Gingrich is obviously Michael Savage without the paranoid schizophrenia. Or is it the other way round? I am so confused.

If you give me any signal that you are a whiny ass cry-baby, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to convince me you should be allowed to keep your American citizenship.

Everyone knows that them Muslims only have one plan, which they have memorized down to the seat numbers. So they are easy-peasy to spot!

"Yes, hello, United Airlines? I'd like to book a seat on flight 93 for Tuesday, the 11th."

"Certainly sir, will that be terrorism or non-terrorism?"

"Terrorism, please"

"I'm sorry, sir, but those seats are all taken on that flight. Can you fly a different day?"

"Uh, gee, um. You mean, not on the 11th? No, I don't think so... Shit, I don't know!.. I'll have to pray a bit and get back to you."

"Certainly sir. Have a nice day!"

"And you. Infidel."

I didn't hear it myself, but the most recent "this american life" radio show on npr was about the muslim experience in the US after 9/11.

The lead segment (usually the show has 3 segments) is a reportedly heartwrehching story of a muslim family who moved from NYC to suburban virginia soon after 9/11 (yes, *Idiots*) and how thier young daughter was hounded out of school by other children egged on by thier teacher's highly effective hate development program and the father moved back to palestine he found it so unpleasant.

Should be up on thier website next week. (www.thislife.org).

Gingrich hates our freedoms. His crabbed liberty hating philosophy has more in common with that of the terrorists than with that of the founding fathers. If I conducted a blind study and asked people to attribute an author to the crap that comes out of Gingrich's mouth my guess is that they would pick bin Laden as the speaker instead of an American politician. Gingrich should not be given a national forum to express his radical tyrannical unamerican views. He's a chicken hawk, wife cheating, elitist, America hater.

A few things. First, Newt is posturing for the base. Second, muslims are required to pray five times a day, and anyone running for president should know that. Third, Muslims can pray individually, but it is considered preferrable to have one man, usually the one that knows more verses from the Quran, to lead the others in prayer.

When traveling, you can condense your prayers, but you still need to do them at certain times. The first before sunrise, the second and third can be combined. The fourth, which comes directly after sunset, can be combined with the last. So muslims don't pray in groups to wish for a safe flight, they do it because they must. Praying in public isn't a crime, last time I checked.

But most importantly, the guy with the beard sitting next to you on a flight is not a terrorist. It's much more likely to be the clean-shaven guy with a leather jacket, doing his best impersonation of an italian. This is precisely because of the stupidity of people like Newt Gingrich.

Another thing. Most airports have nondenominational chapels, so rather than mincing words, we should just announce on the PA system that Muslims should pray in the proper places, out of the site of people who might find worshipping the God of Abraham offensive. But of course we couldn't make those announcements in Arabic, lest some culture warrior confuses it with some new form of terrorist mind control, and pisses his pants.

Do right wing nuts realize that they are completely fascist? Or are they as dumb as I think? In the end however we aren't as dumb as they think...and that is all that matters.

The police report on this incident is reproduced here.

There's a bit more to the case than this post implies.

I can get prosecuted for making a bomb joke while standing in line waiting to take my shoes off. A deliberate attempt to create an impression of being a terrorist for political reasons--the only motive I can see for this behavior--is better?

Another thing. Most airports have nondenominational chapels, so rather than mincing words, we should just announce on the PA system that Muslims should pray in the proper places, out of the site of people who might find worshipping the God of Abraham offensive.

On the other hand, if some Christian starts to pray out loud in a public airport, we can just sic the ACLU on him. Thank God (pardon the expression) they didn't set up a manger scene.

Amazing how flexible the liberal tolerance for public displays of faith can be.

Hey, monkeybone, feel free to drop by and celebrate with our display of faith. In my religion, we observe the sacrificing of one's self centered desires, so that the group can be enriched. They next time we pay homage to Huitzilopochtli, you drop by ya' hear. We'll have a special slab prepared for you. We love to share our religion with non-believers.

A deliberate attempt to create an impression of being a terrorist for political reasons

Could you be a little more specific? The report is hard to follow. Is it the seatbelt extentions bit? I don't want to sound patronizing, but if Americans really are afraid of Muslims, they might want to get to know the religion a little better.

Muslims are allowed to pray while traveling. Normally, prayer includes several rounds of kneeling and bending, something you can't do while on a plane, or in a car, or on a horse. So prayers for seated travelers are minimized to bending forward while seated. I don't know if these guys were fat, or just showing off, something Christians have been known to do, but seatbelt extentions don't seem like a dangerous request.

Most muslims pray in their seats while on planes, out of respect for the other passengers, because getting out of your seat to pray in the isles is disruptive.

Well, Newt can be an enigma - Sometimes he is the Smooth Newt, other times the Rough Newt. Has a remarkable facility to be able to reproduce himself, either his limbs, eyes, spinal cord or political career.

However, beware of his proclivity to produce toxins in his skin secretions as a defense mechanism against predators such as Democrats or rivals in the Publican Party. Roughskin Newt produces more than enough tetrodotoxin to kill any adult foolish enough to swallow any of either him or his hogwash. (Is not that special in how I cleaned that up).

Some have said that it is possible to handle him, if one washes their hands with plenty of soap and water in order to rid themselves of any oil. Perhaps someday he will morph into an eft and swim away. Or perhaps he has become an eft and will now flounder on shore.

Actually, after reading the report, it's all fairly clear. Americans are clearly bigots and fools. Thank for clearing up any question on the topic.

A couple had one way tickets, the horror! They prayed, "loudly", in "Arabic", using words like "Allah", something you would never ever see at a Megachurch or an NFL football game. They then talked about Iraq, and Saddam, and the U.S., in the same conversation, clearly using scary terrorist accents. They took their seats, and had the arrogance to think that they could sit where the little stub told them to, causing panic when they ended up in a classic terrorist "V" formation.

On some Isles, prayer is encouraged - Isle of Iona, Isle of Man.........

And yes, I take this personally. Being a muslim and speaking Arabic alone has landed me on the TSA watchlist. I can't check in at the kiosks. I get extra security. I can't sit in an exit row, or near the bulkhead, which is a pain when you are are over six feet tall. And yes, I travel on one-way tickets all the time for business, just like millions of other Americans.

All so a bunch of ignorant, arrogant, fat-ass pussies can feel secure in the knowledge that they live in the greatest, most bravest country in the world. Fuck you.

On some Isles

hehe, oops.

Does Alyssa Milano routinly walk up to terrorists and tell them that their dog is cute?

"On the other hand, if some Christian starts to pray out loud in a public airport, we can just sic the ACLU on him. "

The ACLU would far more likely provide free legal representation for anyone forced to go to a chapel to pray in an airport, whatever thier religion.

We need to just kill everybody in the world who isn't an Amurican and then we'll be safe.

Well, maybe we need to kill all the liberals too. Then we'll be safe.

Oh yeah, and all the Independents who voted against Bush.

And all the liberal RINOs.

And all the paleo-conservatives who don't support the war.

And all the people from Bush 41's administration.

That'll just leave me, Bush, Cheney and Barney.

Poor liberals. A man steps up and takes ownership of the simple notion: how to defend America; and you all lose your collective minds.

This is what Professor Newt was speaking about:

Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible.

"Our friends at the 'ACLU left,' of course, were staggered at this concept," Gingrich told an audience of Republicans at a Christmas banquet. "How could we talk about anything less than 100 percent free speech? How could we consider in any way thinking about this issue?"

Now, the cuter and more snarky among you--why does the name craigie instantly spring to mind? would say, and you would be completely correct if you did (but not if your name was craigie!) But Norman and Professor Newt--the Constitution doesn't grant us 75% free speech or even 33 and 1/3% free speech--it actually does give us 100% free speech and Professor Newt is a moron!

Allow me to explain. Yes, the Bill of Rights? First Amendment? It gives you 100% free speech and Professor Newt is technically wrong. But he means well and what he means is that as long as your 100% free speech isn't directed towards criticizing any aspect of how we fight terror, don't worry about having your rights impeded in any way--the government will take care of that for you.

Further into the article we read:

Gingrich cited last month's ejection of six Muslim scholars from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior, which included reports they prayed before the flight and had sat in the same seats as the Sept. 11 hijackers.

"Those six people should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists," Gingrich said. "And the crew of the U.S. airplane should have been invited to the White House and congratulated for being correct in the protection of citizens."

Absolutely correct. Never mind that the men carried no weapons and were exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free practice of their religion--what they were doing frightened ignorant Americans, and frightening ignorant Americans will not be tolerated. Therefore, in order to protect ignorant Americans, Professor Newt rightly concludes that bigoted, misinformed and paranoid behavior is, to put it in it's proper context, actually heroic in his worldview and only misguided liberals are dedicating themselves towards the idea of ensuring that Americans are informed, tolerant and unafaid of that which is different from the norm.

Gingrich spoke to a crowd of about 250 at the Manchester Republican City Committee's Christmas dinner, held at the Executive Court Banquet Facility.

On Nov. 27, he said the First Amendment may require a "different set of rules" for terrorists, comments made while he addressed a free speech award dinner hosted by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications.

Allow your uncle Norman to explain to you what these new rules should entail:

1. No one can criticize the government. This is obvious. Stop tearing down the people who are keeping you safe.

2. No one can play Monday morning quarterback about this war on terror in which we find ourselves. Obviously, this is covered by number 1, but since liberals forget everything nearly instantly, allow me to repeat myself.

3. Free speech is, really, a freedom to be found at the STATE level in our country. Let us return to the days of states' rights and make it so that, when someone expresses themselves, they should do so at the jurisdictional level of the states and municipalities--no more criticism of the Federal government. If you live in Oklahoma and want to say bad things about the governor of Oklahoma, go ahead. See? That's all the freedom of speech you need.

4. I had planned on having several more of these, but I think it would be better to make it up as we go along--why worry about making a list when some liberal is just going to attack the specifics of my plan, right?

Suffice it to say that government of, by, and for the people is easier if you wing it and don't sweat the details.

Gingrich went on to eloquently explain himself:

In an interview, Gingrich said it is possible to distinguish between terrorists and others when looking to fight threatening expression.

"If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you," Gingrich said.

Do you understand what that means, liberals? It means that Professor Newt is so dedicated to defending America that he's ready to turn the concept of the burden of proof completely around and abandon it--just to keep you safe from terrorism.

Now, granted--you are far more likely to be hit by lightning like poor Senator Johnson than you are to be split in two by a terrorist with a circular saw, but if we don't take every available precaution--and that includes destroying all of our freedoms--there is simply no way to save all of our freedoms.

I have just told you something for nothing, now please join me in supporting Professor Newt in his quest to win the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2008. If we all pull together, we can save America and save our freedoms by getting behind Professor Newt and his ideas.

"If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you," Gingrich said.

There they go again, spitting on the US Constitution, certainly Repugs hate freedom and want only to serve king Bush forever, forever and amen. Even James Baker deferred to the royalty of little Bushie, deriding himself and commission. Baker believed Bush is his Commander and Chief and as the lawyer that could reach settlement, Baker is as useless as that cowardly solider Colin Powell, for they both need no stinking freedom. Nope, they just serve king Bushie, and in little Bushie, they got one king they always looked for.

Baker also serves at the pleasure of preisdent.

So when do we round up all the right-wing militia wackos and Tim McVeighs in the GOP?

Exactly right, Cheryl. That's why we need to get behind Professor Newt and put a real Republican in the White House. Thank you for your sensible comments--a gal after my own heart.

enozinho:

I don't know if these guys were fat, or just showing off, something Christians have been known to do, but seatbelt extentions don't seem like a dangerous request.

Most muslims pray in their seats while on planes, out of respect for the other passengers, because getting out of your seat to pray in the isles is disruptive.

If you can locate ANY other example of Muslim plane travelers ordering seatbelt extensions so they can bend over to pray, please do so. God knows it must be more effective than simply unfastening the damn buckle like you have to do to get up to pee.

And yes, I take this personally. Being a muslim and speaking Arabic alone has landed me on the TSA watchlist. I can't check in at the kiosks. I get extra security. I can't sit in an exit row, or near the bulkhead, which is a pain when you are are over six feet tall. And yes, I travel on one-way tickets all the time for business, just like millions of other Americans.

Terribly sorry about that. I am acquainted with someone who normally travels in a wheelchair, who has to stand up with great difficulty while being wanded for the metal in her hip. She gets the works every time, and is Dutch and Norwegian. Same for thousands of other people who have to get the Third Degree who are anything but Arab looking. All because some wankers had to come over and blow up a few buildings for God. Cry me a bloody river.

Try spending a little more time opposing that rotten little minority of Muslims that are making all the trouble, and less time crapping all over America and what it's doing.

Yes, I looked at your website.

Typical GOP. Such pre-1776 thinking.

This is not good. I really dislike seeing the emergence of Newt Gingrich. Now he has this bombastic 10 Point Contract for America, wants to construct his very own conservative movement to save the American civilization, plus intends to restore God in government and culture. In the mental health business we call this grandiose thinking.
Not big on separation of church and state... hopes to legislate morality, I suppose.
This will be a huge vat of negativity in the coming months. He certainly is in the mood to court the base and we will be seeing a lot of him on Sunday talk shows.
Yuck.

This is not good. I really dislike seeing the emergence of Newt Gingrich. Now he has this bombastic 10 Point Contract for America, wants to construct his very own conservative movement to save the American civilization, plus intends to restore God in government and culture.

What's wrong with that? The man has a vision for America. It might be a vision that has liberals screaming and it might be a vision that takes a few freedoms away and misappropriates a couple of others and let a few other freedoms sink into oblivion--do you doubt that Newt Gingrich will slaughter our enemies and save America?

In the mental health business we call this grandiose thinking.

Oh, making some armchair diagnoses are we? Tell me, what's my deal? What's wrong with me? What's your honest medical assessment of me? And if your diagnosis omits the word 'brilliant' I won't accept it.

Not big on separation of church and state... hopes to legislate morality, I suppose.
This will be a huge vat of negativity in the coming months. He certainly is in the mood to court the base and we will be seeing a lot of him on Sunday talk shows.
Yuck.

Oh, no way, dude...negative vibes, man. The other day, I was listening to the Jefferson Airplane on acid and I blinked and all the vibes turned into a harsh buzz...NOT!

Who lets these hippies speak for you, liberals? Don't you know that you look like a pack of howling buffoons?

And you wonder why I laugh at you from afar.

This is not good. I really dislike seeing the emergence of Newt Gingrich.

Wouldn't be that much of a problem if the Democrats had anybody on the '08 bench who crapped bigger than a tree shrew.

Hello, Norman. Oh, you just use a few "I" statements, which probably just reflects your style...I don't mind it, and it's ok if you laugh from afar. I think you just have fun as you conjure up a character-- and like to write. Sometimes you are even clever.
Newt comes with some triple sized baggage--the $300,000 fine for ethics violations is a problem for him. And not to be mean but he seems like a straight-laced fogey, and probably can't capture the youth vote. You wouldn't call him exciting, charismatic or presenting anything new. It kind of puts me in mind of the bad times in the 90's with overbearing, self-righteous republicans. He will preen about the stage for a while, I suppose.

I don't know much about tree shews, really...it seems like dems have quite a few gems in the running. Plus we're taking over now. I think it will be a big adjustment for you guys.

How was the party CWA? Obviously no one ired you to the point of violence, since you aren't emailing anyone for bail...

It was kind of fun--an interactive comedy show featuring a mystery and some over-the top actors/comedians. Italian buffet. We were out of there by ten, and home sweet home.

cool whip addict:

Hello, Norman. Oh, you just use a few "I" statements, which probably just reflects your style...I don't mind it, and it's ok if you laugh from afar. I think you just have fun as you conjure up a character-- and like to write. Sometimes you are even clever.

You left out brilliant. Now, I told you to include the word, you left it out. Was this done to provoke me? I would advise you not to provoke me.

I tend to become...upset.

The Science Soirree is next weekend. I'll get to spend a couple of hours among drunken physicists trying to explain string theory, and they will be just as thrilled to hear about my prions.

I have so much to do related to family and Christmas and am clearly procrastinating on this board. Do you have to present anything at the Soiree?

Eric Rudolph was evidently a Christian terrorist who bombed the Atlanta Olympics and some abortion clinics.

Would Newt say that anti-abortion Christian southerners have the burden of proof to show they are not terrorists?

Just myself. And of course there will be a certain amount of ring kissing...

You may talk and sing and boast about your fellers and your clans,
And how the boys from County Cork beat up the Black and Tan.
But I know a little codger who came out without a scar.
His name is Paddy Mulligan, the man from Mullingar.

cho: The fellers chased him out of Town O'Meara,
For beatin' up the valiant Dan O'Hara.
And when he came to Ballymore, he stole the Parson's car,
And he sold it to the Bishop in the town of Castlegar.
Seven hundred fellers couldn't match him.
The Chieftain paid the army for to catch him.
And when he came to Dublin Town, he stole an armoured car
And sold it to the I. R. A. brigade in Mullingar.

Well the fellers got their orders to suppress the man on sight.
So they sent for reinforcements through the county left and right.
Three thousand men surrounded him, they hunted near and far.
But he was with the I. R. A. brigade in Johnson's motorcar.

They came with tanks and armoured cars, they came with all their might.
Them fellers never counted on old Paddy's dynamite.
On the fourteenth day of April, well he blew them to July.
And the name of Paddy Mulligan took half of Ireland's pride.

Consider Wisely, since you are here to keep order, I'm going to go cklean up the kitchen and get ready for bed. I'll see you tomorrow.

I stashed some lorazepam under the bridge for the trolls. Use as necessary.

PowerLineBlog has been following the "Flying Imans" issue closely.

PowerLine has lots of good info that Drum skips right over. (For instance, the police report is available online - the Imams did lots of things to provoke the other passengers.)

Of course, Kevin Drum skips the facts here, because he only wants an opportunity to bash Gingrich.

little minority of Muslims that are making all the trouble... monkeybone at 11:10 P

I tend to become...upset. Norman Rogers 12:32 AM

the Imams did lots of things to provoke the other passengers... 12:58 AM

Sacrificing Civil Rights for the sake of security is committing suicide out of fear of death. The Republicans are no conservatives; they are the ultimate hypocrites. They talk about small government and put Big Government on people's backs more than anyone else.

"If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you,"

I agree completely.

Any white male between the ages of 20 to 35 who attempts to rent a truck, or so much as steps into a farm-supply store, should be immediately arrested.

And if any of these suspects grew up in a Christian home in a conservative, Republican district, or if they had previously served in the US military, they should be held as enemy combatants. We can't afford to take any chances. The burden of proof is on them.

This country cannot, ney must not, allow another Oklahama City to happen again.

Had we followed this policy 10 years ago, we would have nailed that terrorist-scum Eric Rudolph the first time he walked into a North Carolina Piggly-Wiggly.

Wingnut Theorem Number One:
Every American has to be willing to give up the freedoms that we are claiming to protect in case of an emergency.

Wingnut Theorem Number Two:
We can make anything into an emergency.

Nuff sed.

I am acquainted with someone who normally travels in a wheelchair, who has to stand up with great difficulty while being wanded for the metal in her hip...All because some wankers had to come over and blow up a few buildings for God. Cry me a bloody river.

It's true. We didn't need metal detectors before 9/11. It did change everything. Consider this an apology from the 1,200,900,000 who don't plan to blow themselves up for God. We really should learn to show deference to your feelings. In an effort to heal your pain, I've placed a glowstick in my ass. It's the least I can do.

Enozinho, you are now my hero.

Flew to San Diego and back before 9/11 - Went through metal detectors both times - The problem was with the lax controls by the airlines - Box cutters were not prohibited, for whomever's sake??? The airlines did not want the responsibility for screening passengers - They did not want to inconvienence passengers -

The real problem facing passengers before 9/11 was whether an expensive item of theirs would make it safely through screening without being ripped off by cohorts of the screeners. Knew a lawyer who was returning from dinner at the White House during Clinton's era - At Dulles, his Louis Vouiton and memorabilia from the dinner never made it to the end. It became an "Oops" moment with United.

Had proper screening measures been in force before 9/11, those scum bags would have never been able to complete their mission.

Had Shrub and Condi paid proper attention to the warnings, it would have never happened.

The eye of the beholder?
On a recent flight from Italy to the US, I saw a number of people cross themselves before the flight took off. They also crossed themselves when we landed.

Is it possible that like these Christians, the Muslims were praying for a safe trip?

Unfortunately, Gingrich, like many today, lacks the wisdom of perspective.

If Newt approached me, I would definitely hold up a Cross and garlic as well.

I suppose a portion of the U.S. population IS bigotted and racist - and still very paranoid about flight security. The environment is equivalent to a (ficticious) city whose police force faced a horrible crime, and may be a little trigger-happy due to that.

In that environment, I would take a little extra precaution to NOT raise suspicions. The Imams, innocent as they may be, arose heavy suspicions with actions and behaviors very similar to the 9/11 suicide hijackers.

Had a Bible-carrying Catholic priest exhibited the same actions and behaviors before committing a suicide hijacking, killing thousands, I would be just as concerned when the next Catholic priest displays similar pre-flight behavior.

A less paranoid country will arrive someday. It's not here yet.

Gingrich hates us for our freedoms.

The Imams, innocent as they may be, arose heavy suspicions with actions and behaviors very similar to the 9/11 suicide hijackers.

Actually, the imams' behavior was very dissimilar to that of the 9/11 hijackers. The hijackers were clean-shaven, did not pray in public, and tried not to draw attention to themselves.

Had a Bible-carrying Catholic priest exhibited the same actions and behaviors before committing a suicide hijacking, killing thousands, I would be just as concerned when the next Catholic priest displays similar pre-flight behavior.

You are committing a logical fallacy here by implying causation with correlation. Your example above would work if the murderous Bible-carrying priest was the only priest who had ever prayed in public, and therefore such behavior would be unusual in the extreme -- but since millions and millions of other Bible-carrying priests pray in public and have never hijacked a plane anyone, then the Bible-carrying and prayer have only a 0.000001% etc. correlation with suicide hijacking. Similarly, tens of millons of Muslims who travel on airlines pray on the plane or in the airport every day, yet we don't have near tens of millions of suicide hijackings.

Such a system would produce millions of false positives for every one real positive which, logistically alone, would make it entirely useless.

I watched Gingrich on Meet the Press this morning and was struck by two things: (1) Gingrich's obvious confusion over the basic rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution, and (2) How his massively inflated ego and narcissism is a form of mental illness.

Gingrich equates the ability of large corporations to make campaign donations to the rights of common, everyday Americans to access the Internet or other forms of public media. I think the Founding Fathers would disagree sharply with him on this. The Bill of Rights was written to outline those rights that ordinary Americans have and that the government cannot take away. The "rights" of a corporation to make campaign contributions are granted by legislative fiat. They are not "inalienable" as the Bill of Rights laid out. Gingrich just doesn't get this, although he claims to be a historian. On the second point, Gingrich cannot admit fault or take responsibility for his actions and he seems to have some sort of messianic vision of himself, as having these profound ideas, which basically amount to being a shill for corporate America to the detriment of common citizens. He makes me want to throw up, he is so pompous and self-righteous. NBC must have had to build a bigger studio to accomodate GingrichT and Russert's egos.

Can we all now start joking about bombs and hijacking when we are standing in line? Or is the privelege only extended to Muslims acting like terrorists?

Whatever happened to basic courtesy?

This reminds me of the story right after 9-11, when some Muslim-looking guys (who IIRC were actually Muslims AND foreign students, and looked more or less like the pix then running in the paper about Atta, et al: young dark haired Muslim men), who were praying in some highway diner. They started to exaggerate whatever it was that provoked the other customers (did they start talking about flight schools?), and wound up talking to the state cops, pissed off at the ignorance and bigotry they had witnessed.

If I was the cop, I might have been tempted to find some way to keep 'em on ice for a day or so, just to learn basic courtesy: it is unreasonable for a well informed person to confuse ordinary Muslim prayers, etc. with terrorism.

But it is ALSO unreasonable to expect that millions of Americans with no direct experience of Islam to know what ordinary Muslim prayers look like.

And some grownup should have smacked the lesson into 'em is unreasonable to require that people who have suffered a shocking attack should accommodate intentionally provocative behavior by folks who, a courteous person would understand, it is not unreasonable FOR THOSE FOLKS to see as having an alarming amount in common with people who murdered thousands of Americans.

Scaring people cuz you think they're ignorant is the act of a punk.

I carry no water for Gingrich, he's a clown. That's why nobody should fall for this sucker play: He's wrong on the Constitutional principle, but he's right on the COURTESY involved.

Folks may not think it's "fair" for Muslims to carry a special burden to show their patriotism (or even their harmlessness) after 9-11: that's legit.

But it's real. Denial is just stoopid. What's entirely missing from the police report and all the news stories about the flying imams is the slightest indication that they felt any obligation to be courteous toward the concern that other passengers and finally the pilot had toward how they were acting: cursing the war in Iraq, after praying in Arabic, and then making a baffling request of the airline staff?

The one guy who did absolutely the right thing in this mess was the pilot: he promptly made the decision that he would rather be safe than sorry.

Would that the imams had felt the same obligation.

Going through life looking for folks to offend you is utterly negative, and in this case, completely counterproductive: "The best way to fight evil, is to do good."

So whatever happened to simple courtesy?

Funny, craigie, but I am reminded of your Control Freak al Qaeda Leaders post in which kosher meals and choice of hijacking garb were among the many instructions.

I wish I could find that post...it was a classic that still makes me laugh when I think of it.

theAmericanist: Going through life looking for folks to offend you is utterly negative...So whatever happened to simple courtesy?

It died a bloody death with the people who go through life looking for people to offend. Gotta go--my irony meter's beeping so loudly the upstairs neighbors are complaining.

"But it is ALSO unreasonable to expect that millions of Americans with no direct experience of Islam to know what ordinary Muslim prayers look like."

I could accept this, except that it gives carte blanche to all manner of unacceptable behavior to people who don't look like you. Many Sihks in new york were treated to the "you're a terrorist" treatment, in the mistaken belief that they were muslims. Muslims do not wear turbans. It's more a case of "if it looks anything like something that might be a bird, or it walks somewhat possibly slightly similar to any bird, then it's a very specific breed of duck." Were they treated like terrorist suspects from the get go?

What did happen to common courtesy? Maybe if the Imans had been treated with the same respect that is accorded other major religious leaders, they might have been more courteous in return. Having said that, I don't know them, and I've heard of some pretty arrogant priests (of many denominations) so they may just have been real dicks. But it usually takes two to tango, so I'm guessing there was more than enough ill courtesy on both sides ...

they prayed before the flight and had sat in the same seats as the Sept. 11 hijackers.

I call bullshit on this. I've been flying all my life, and I have never been asked about seat asignments, beyond "aisle or window?"

Globe: You can often choose your specific seat if you book online. I always like to sit as close as possible to first class so that I can toss my trash up there.

Ah. The minutiae you miss when you have a relative who is a travel agent...

I like the idea of tossing the trash at the first-class pre-boarders.

Oops, posted too soon -

My information was obviously outdated, since I have only booked (maybe) three trips myself in the last decade; and I booked those on the phone. I routinely just let Sarah handle it for me. There's a joke in there about Jews never paying retail somewhere...

newt's da man: This country cannot, ney must not, allow another Oklahama City to happen again.

most republicans are ignorant of the fact that the #1 killer of americans by terror from 1993 to 9/11 was...

timothy mcveigh...

fyi..he led al qeuda by more than 3-to-1...

I know the axiom about all internet discussions resulting in the mention of Hitler and fascism, so I'm somewhat sorry to be the one to invoke it here. However, in this particular instance, I think it's appropriate.

Gingrich seems to be rooting for a catastrophe so bad (e.g, a terrorist nuclear attack on an american city) that the frightened citizens will just appoint him dictator.

He's explicitly positioning himself (he says so himself) for a national emergency so the populace to turn to him.

In 1928, the Nazi party got 2.4% of the vote (although by then the German people had been through a lot more than Americans have today, and had a much weaker democracy). I doubt that Hitler was rooting for the ensuing Great Depression, but it was the final onus that allowed him to seize power.

Gingrich wants to seize power on the back of a catastrophic event and rule how he sees fit. He really is a modern American fascist. (I'm not saying Gingrich would do what Hitler did, in fact, I'm quite sure he wouldn't. But his impulse to assert total control and his chosen path to power seems quite familiar.)

the whole "seat assignments" bullshit is apparently a reference that the 6 spaced themselves 2 fore, 2 mid, and 2 aft.

apparently on 9/11, the hijackers (4-5 per plane) arrayed themselves all over the plane for presumed crowd control puproses. It goes no further than that ... just some white trash pilots trying to cover their asses with whatever excuses come to mind.

Seen from outside the US, there is more ill-will on the Muslim side than the US side. Some of you better get up to speed.

I am sympathetic as hell for the Palestinians, but not for overly religious Muslims. If they pray out loud on my flight, I get to sing Scottish songs out loud to drown them out.

"Oh! ye'll take the high road and
I'll take the low road,
And I'll be in Scotland afore ye...."

Kevin Drum wrote:

"Newt "Savior of Western Civilization" Gingrich has decided that free speech is for pansies...."
____________________

Was it free speech that was at issue or the provocative acts that seemed to be deliberately done in order to incite fear? Requesting seat belt extensions they did not need, only to stow them under their seats, perhaps as weapons? Taking two seats at the front, middle and back of the aircraft? These people weren't merely exercising free speech, they were trying to incite something.

Had I been the aircraft commander, that plane would not have moved an inch under such circumstances.

Can we all now start joking about bombs and hijacking when we are standing in line? Or is the privelege only extended to Muslims acting like terrorists?
Posted by: MatthewRMarler

I normall wouldn't bother responding to a disingenuous piece of racist trash like MRM ... but no one in any of the police reports said anything about the Imans talking about bombs and/or hijacking.

Some paranoid crackers DID report hearing the words "US" and "killing Saddam" ... but with the war crime that is Iraq occurring under our noses, you can't be surprised when someone talks about it.

I'm not sure why I bother ... wussies like MRM will wet themselves at the sight of Muslims praying anyways.

These people weren't merely exercising free speech, they were trying to incite something.
Posted by: Trashhauler

what were they trying to incite?

your perspective is that of a coward ... and does not automatically translate to suspicious activity by any reasonable, non-bigoted standard.

... no more so than, say, ...

there are 2 large black men walking towards me. they must be about to mug me.

Were you responsible for anything else during your military service than dropping shit off?? ... because racist trash like you is an affront to our military. I certainly hope they didn't arm you anywhere near any minorities.

"You know, everybody talks about fascism, but nobody wants to actually try it out."
_________________

I really wish people would look up the actual description of fascism, which is a very complex ideology. This use of the term to describe any opinion or action with which one disagrees is really tiresome. Accusing someone of fascism is too facile by half. ("Well that's fascist, by Jingo! No need to examine or think about it further.") The misuse of the word "fascist" weakens the term, just as the German Communists did in the 1920s when they condemned the moderate Social Democrats as being "Social Fascists," thereby enhancing the chances for the real fascists to get in.

A far more appropriate word to describe government coercion is "statist." This is a situation in which the state decides to overrule personal rights for the convenience of the state. Statist actions can be committed by governments of all stripes, fascist, communist, socialist, democratic, monarchist, or whatever.

For Pete's sake, people. Read "The Fascist Tradition, by John Weiss or "Three Faces of Fascism" by Ernst Nolte before throwing the fascist bomb at every right winger you dislike.

Requesting seat belt extensions they did not need, only to stow them under their seats, perhaps as weapons?

No wingnut has been able to explain how this is in any way similar to anything a hijacker has ever done on a flight. Why you guys make this leap is beyond me. I mean, you can bring baseball bats, and dozens of other objects on a plane that could be used as a weapon yourself... so why you would go for the seatbelt nunchucks is above my pay grade.

Last time I flew at LAX, there as a guy in front of me in the carry on drop off location. He fit the typical white trash profile. He opened a steel suitcase and pulled out a giant handgun, apparently unaware that waving a pistol around in an airport might be a tad innapropriate. The x-ray security dude just gave him a little look and asked him to put the gone away, and that was it. I was scared shitless, but aparently this is normal. Speaking Arabic in public, not so much.

Nads wrote:

"what were they trying to incite?

your perspective is that of a coward"
___________________

Nads, off hand I'd guess that they were trying to incite headlines and just such discussions as this, probably hoping that most people would only read the headline and not look much further. But the pilot in command doesn't have the luxury of guessing at motivation.

As far as my being a coward goes, I have to plead guilty, of course. For example, I'm sure that you are much more brave than I. It's always been my policy to do my duty and then, whenever possible, bravely run away. Likewise, I share the common attitude among pilots that if I get my ass safely on the ground, then so does everyone else in the plane. A corrolary is that if something seems wrong when you're on the ground, don't take off. It's amazing how many lives that attitude has saved.

As far as trying to paint me as some sort of bigot, don't bother. To the extent that we all must deal with our own prejudices, so do I. I'm sure you are much better than me in that regard, as well.

As far as trying to paint me as some sort of bigot, don't bother. To the extent that we all must deal with our own prejudices, so do I. I'm sure you are much better than me in that regard, as well.
Posted by: Trashhauler

That is obvious from your last 2 posts. I suggest you get some help.

enozihno wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'Requesting seat belt extensions they did not need, only to stow them under their seats, perhaps as weapons?'

No wingnut has been able to explain how this is in any way similar to anything a hijacker has ever done on a flight. Why you guys make this leap is beyond me.
______________________

So far as I know, it is not similar to anything that a previous hijacker has done, except that it was unusual enough to draw the attention of every flight attendant. Those extensions are for for the safety of extremely obese people, enozihno. The normal use of these extensions by the non-obese renders them useless as safety devices (For that reason alone, the flight attendants should not have given them to the travelers.) A reasonable person might well wonder what other purpose they might be used for.

Under the current security regimen, crews are taught to look for the unusual, whatever the source. And this situation was very unusual. You know that. Don't be so disengenuous.

If you don't want to be called a bigot, you need to come to terms with the fact that what got this whole thing rolling was the fear caused by some guys praying in public. That was the suspicious activity that colored everything else they did.

And like many others have pointed out, praying in public is the last thing a hijacker would do. So it is indeed Islam that is under scrutiny here. It seems every person that appears muslim is enough to arouse interest. It is only when they compound it with actions like the imams made, or when you find a particularly overzealous passenger, does it raise to the level of arrests or the cancelation of a flight. That's bigotry.

Nads wrote:

"I suggest you get some help."
________________

God, Nads, you're a laugh riot, ya know? ::grin::

Enozinho wrote:

"If you don't want to be called a bigot, you need to come to terms with the fact that what got this whole thing rolling was the fear caused by some guys praying in public."
__________________

Oh, I don't mind being called a bigot. You can call me pregnant, if you like. It doesn't make it true.

You are so intent on being offended (or at least, expressing offense) you deny that weird behavior is weird. And it was more than just prayer. If you choose to consider it bigotry, then that is on you. In the meantime, the imams got their headlines, you got to bitch, and the airlines got to put another paragraph in their list of things that are weird.

I would happily wager that, despite your cowardly paronoia, the Imans would have preferred to have just gotten home, and would have foregone the headlines.

your need to villify all muslims makes you see an ulterior motives in 6 guys trying to get home.

fortunately, your generation is dying off, and we can look forward to the less offensive successors. that's the nice thing about being progressive ... regressive racist dinosaurs can try, but they can't stop it.

And it was more than just prayer.

Lets go to the tape. From the police report:

Grewenow and I boarded the aircraft and met the reporting party, who identified himself with his photo California driver’s licence as [redacted], date of birth [redacted] told me the following: He witnessed six Middle Eastern males in the gate area praying and chanting in an Arabic dialect. They chanted the world Allah, Allah, Allah. He then eavesdropped into their conversation and overheard them mention Sadam and heard them curse about the U.S. involvement.

That's it. An overzealous passenger decided that their praying in public was cause for him to follow them around the gate area, snoop in on their conversations, and take note of where they sat on the plane. You can talk about seatbelt extensions as weapons, their one way tickets, or whatever you feel like, but the fact is that these guys were targeted by a passenger because they were praying in public, plain and simple.

And if you read upthread, you would know that Muslims pray out loud, in groups. And that they have no choice but to pray at certain times of day.

It's not about bitching. Rightwingers spend so much ink lamenting the fact that America doesn't understand the enemy. But you're perfectly willing to let ignorant fools paint all Muslims as potential suspects by claiming its better to be safe then sorry. It's not about the civil rights issue, it's about the stupid. It's about having to suffer the wild-eyed fantasies of racist blowhards, because some whacko, with absolutely no connection to those being scrutinized, blew himself up five years ago.

eno: 'upthread'? Dude, all I see is goose eggs and yours is the sole comment on this thread now.

Cue the 'Twilight Zone' theme.

Trashhauler asked about fascism. It is derived from the Latin "fasces," meaning sticks gathered into a mass or pile, a bundle, a collection. In Latin times they referred to the group being important, and the individual stick not at all important. Kind of a clever term, really. I love Latin, and in high school was a Latin scholar.
Mussolini, in the 30's, is considered to have originated modern day fascism, and said "The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in as far as his interests conicide with the state; it is opposed to classical liberalism (that) denied the State in the name of the individual. Fascism reasserts the right of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."
So--no individual rights. So--the government controls.
Features of fascism are well described in Free Inquiry Magazine, vollume 23, number 2. Try to google it.
14 supposed characteristics--nationalism, disdain for human rights, importance of foes/common threat/enemies identified, military supremacy, sexism, mass media is controlled, there is an obsession with national security, there is intertwining of religion and government, a supression of labor and labor unions, limitless power of the State to enforce laws/big police state/obsession with crime & punishment, and fraudulent elections.

According to this report, the Imams behaved in a way that appeared intentionally provocative.

That link has links to the actual police report and statements by witnesses.

consider always wisely, one small correction. I didn't ask about fascism. I asked that those who use the term freely try to learn something about it before using it. It is not simply anything a person does not like about government.

Your post is a good start, though the article you cite is still quite a bit off - many of those characteristics can be found in other statist forms. And some of them aren't necessarily part of any fascist philosophy at all. In fact, it sounds like the article was written with an agenda of its own.

Trashhauler: what you wrote was "I really wish people would look up the definition of fascism"

The dictionary defines "fascist" as a member of the Fascisti 2) relating to fascism, 3) a member of some similar party; Nazi, Falagnist, etc."
4)An advocate of fascism or fascists, also adhering to or supporting fascism.

It defines fascism as "a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible oppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc. the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control, beligerant nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc.: first instituted in Italy in 1922, See also Nazism."

I have a beautifully leather bound, old dictionary that really tells it like it is.

Enz, you're hurting your own cause far more than you evidently know, cuz you don't know much.

Nads is even worse: "he hijackers (4-5 per plane) arrayed themselves all over the plane for presumed crowd control puproses. It goes no further than that ... just some white trash pilots trying to cover their asses with whatever excuses come to mind."

Perhaps you should acquire facts before you express opinions, Nads.

The police report notes that one passenger was sufficiently concerned that he told an airline employee about the 6 imams praying as a group, that they were praying in Arabic, and THAT THEY THEN DISPERSED AROUND THE PLANE.

To the airline staff, this basically sez these people seem like they're acting together, but now they're... dispersed.

The other passenger then tossed some more fuel on the fire, claiming that he had hurt them "cursing" about US policy toward Iraq.

So the airline staff conferred on the subject -- and another odd piece of information turns up: the seatbelt extensions, which are more or less inexplicable. (Personally, I'm guessing the plane was flying in some direction that they were all contemplating turning at an odd angle during the next prayer time, and decided to ask for longer seatbelts for that reason; but the only significant thing about the oddness of the request FROM SIX PEOPLE is that they didn't have the courtesy to explain it.)

All of this was brought to the attention of The Boss, the guy with responsibility for the lives of ALL the people on the plane, a guy who assuredly knows that several of his colleagues had their throats cut not so long ago and died choking in their own blood on the cabin floor, who is also a guy with a schedule to keep: and he made a prompt snap decision that is entirely defensible -- those guys may fly later when we straighten all this crap out, but get 'em off THIS plane.

Gingrich is way wrong on the Constitution, etc., here, but he's got a point about the courtesy involved. Sure, these guys probably just wanted to fly without incident -- but wouldn't that goal have been achieved without incident if they had been a bit more accomodating to folks who were obviously beginning to freak out about 1) how they prayed together, and 2) how they dispersed around the plane?

Enz: this is why you do your cause no justice. There is no principle here much worth defending, because the pilot making a decision under time pressure did PRECISELY the right thing. Get used to it -- after 9-11, pilots who decide this way will ALWAYS be correct, because this kind of error (such as it is) can be fixed later, while the other error cannot.

To act as if the problem here is an ignorant bigoted passenger, or a white cracker pilot who is covering his ass (from what?), marks you guys for suckers.

If you try to make getting on the plane you booked, while you alarm the airline staff so that the pilot wants you off, into a CONSTITUTIONAL case, you're gonna damage the Constitution AND airline security. Sometimes, you just gotta take the hit, miss the plane...

And grow up.

I always like to sit as close as possible to first class so that I can toss my trash up there.

Laugh out loud funny! Oh, and "class warfare!"

Don't look now, but I think Norman Rogers has the hots for me.

Sometimes, you just gotta take the hit, miss the plane...
And grow up.
Posted by: theAmericanist

It is difficult to take the command to "grow up" seriously from this board's repub apologists.

you pussies are THE biggest bedwetters around after 9/11, your sophomoric naivete shattered in a day, crying for some daddy figure to chase the bad men away and make it right.

LOL -- you don't sound like a guy who's had much experience with responsibility there, Nads.

Unlike, say -- the pilot of the plane, who is responsible for the lives of everybody on board, every time.

Is a muslim praying any more freaky than watching an orthodox jew wailing and wrapping himself in black tape and blankets at the departure gate?

According to this report, the Imams behaved in a way that appeared intentionally provocative.

Did you read the report? I did. It says no such thing. Your Pajamas Media story has the arabic speaker saying things not related in the report at all. "Pauline", the star witness for the story is relaying mostly second-hand information. She's not mentioned in the report, and her reason for remaining anonymous is a joke;

The passenger, who asked that she only be identified as “Pauline,� said she is afraid to give her full name or hometown. She is spending the night at “another location� because she does not feel safe at home. She credits reports that one imam is apparently linked to Hamas. “It is scary because these men could be dangerous.�

Fucking bedwetters. These guys were being scrutinized because a passenger thought their prayers and conversations were suspicious. Everything else is lizard brain paranoia snowballing out of control. After all, these guys were pulled off a plane, arrested, questioned, and released. There is no there, there.

I tried to use the word 'fascist' quite carefully when I applied it to Gingrich.

I wouldn't dream of giving McCain that label. Nothing I've seen of Brownback so far makes me want to label him as such either. Cheney, whom I loathe the most, seems like a very radical paranoid power-hungry authoritarian, but I don't think he's a fascist either.

I get the sense that Guiliani (the most socially moderate of the list), actually has some fascist tendencies, but I don't think I'd come right out and say it.

Gingrich seems special to me though, I think he deserves the label.

Trashauler is right to point out that German Communists (inspired by Lenin actually) accused the German Social Democrats of being 'social fascists,' an historical tragedy to be sure, as they were not.

Does Gingrich believe that the nation-state can be expressed through him, the individual? Yeah, I actually think he does.

eno: as soon as I saw "pajamasmedia" in the URL, I knew ex-liberal's link would be basically bullshit. Thank you for reading it so I didn't have to inflate David Horowitz' hit count.

I really dislike this man. I find it disturbing he phrases this in terms of freedom of speech. On the other hand, if my elderly parents were on this plane and a group of religious fanatics want to make a disturbance and scare the other passengers, in light of the fact that 9/11 did happen and was the product of muslim extremists, I am not averse to taking the step of telling the religious exhibitionists that they are disturbing the peace. If it had been Baptists speaking in tongues, I'd feel the same way.